Tax transfers to those countries to the ever-loving-shit degree. Want to move money to this tax paradise? Sure. We take 90%. Not on profit. On transfer. Let’s see them work around that. Want to move it to a country that doesn’t have the same rules? Sure. We take 90% of that.
I’ve never been able to quite let go of that movie. It’s very on-the-nose but still hits home. So many of us are what we see as the bad guys in the movie; just move it all down to earth and there we are.
Buy another.
Probably not much, given that she looks 12 and she had to wear outdoor clothes to keep warm.
Maybe there isn’t one…
The word “legitimate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, bro.
I can do it to. Selectively by ear. This article seem to consider it highly unusual
but from the last time I saw this skill making the internet rounds, it’s not entirely unusual, as far as I can remember. It had comorbidity with easily being startled or something as well. If you are curious, a few minutes of search or AIing should have the correct information.
You can push liquid through them too. Makes it look like you are crying milk/blood/whatever.
True. But many people can justify it ethically.
Alien: Earth
I’m not sure quite how it relates to what I said. Maybe we are looking at the word risk differently. Let me give an easy example that shows what I think normally is hidden because of complexity.
Five CEOs are faced with the same opportunity to invest heavily in a make or break deal. They either succeed or they go bus, iif they do it. This investment, for one reason or another, only have one winner (because we are simplifying a complex real world problem). All five CEOs invest, four go bust and one wins big. In this simplified example, the one winning CEO would be seen as a great CEO. After all, he did great. The reasonable decision would have been to not invest, but that doesn’t make you a great CEO that can move on to better, greener jobs or cash out huge bonuses. No-one remembers the reasonable CEO that made expected gains without unneeded risks.
Sadly don’t think this is going to happen. A good CEO doesn’t make calculated decisions based on facts and judge risk against profit. If he did, he would, at best, be a normal CEO. Who wants that? No, a truly great CEO does exactly what a truly bad CEO does; he takes risks that aren’t proportional to the reward (and gets lucky)!
This is the only way to beat the game, just like with investments or roulette. There are no rich great roulette players going by the odds. Only lucky.
Sure, with CEOs, this is on the aggregate. I’m sure there is a genius here and a Renaissance man there… But on the whole, best advice is “get risky and get lucky”. Try it out. I highly recommend it. No one remembers a loser. And the story continues.
Jupp.
I’m not saying anything about his age. I’m assuming, which I maybe should not, about the politics of many political systems. I’ll give it 3 years, plus/minus 3 years.
<quote>never be free</quote>
Sweet summer child…
Martyr for what? You have to deeply stand for something very popular (amongst a group of people with beliefs) that is very unpopular with another group. Of all the people in the world, Peter is not running the risc of becoming a martyr - dead or alive.
I see this mistake as a comment more and more often. I’m not saying anything on him remaining alive or not; that’s a completely different set of questions.
Because if they weren’t, you would not be here to eat them. Quite simple, really. :)
Time is a function of our universe. Before our universe, there was no time.
If there is no time, there is infinite time.
If there is infinite time, everything will happen.
If everything will happen, our universe will exist.
Thus, here we are. Or, to paraphrase it in more famous words - if the universe was not as it is, we would not be here to see it.
Let’s just pack our stuff up. I, too, know when I’ve seen a winner.
The inclusion of “found” indicates that it is important to the action taken by Google, would be my interpretation.