Why does every other comment apologize for adams' political views? It's like a bunch of people were conditioned or brainwashed into reflexibly regurgitation nonsense.
Long ago where one's politics is elevated to the position of identity the culture shifted and continues to shift.
I realized early on through IRC that some people cannot have a professional or cordial relationship with someone opposed to their position. The moment someone found out I believed in the opposite of the group I was attacked.
I have no idea what the politics of the CEO of Boeing or Ford or Home Depot is. They don't stand on stages brandishing chainsaws, or writing op-eds about political viewpoints, thus I don't disagree with them on politics. Some CEOs do that and thus choose to associate their companies and their business with politics.
If you make your politics part of your identity, as Adams increasingly chose to do throughout the 2010s, then it will become your identity, and that associates his output with his politics.
I will agree, that promoting a specific ideology will put one at odds. What if you learn about Ford's deleted documents? Home Depot's preferential treatment for some people over others? Does this change your position of the quality of their product? I personally can do business and work with people who are outspoken of their hate toward my belief. I am kept around because of my delivery, despite my religion, which I am thankful. I do not hide my faith within the company but I do not actively speak out because I am conducting professional work.
That was a call out to Javier Milei who famously used a chainsaw during his campaigns in Argentina to talk about cutting waste and he's doing it very successfully while raising Argentina out of poverty & hyperinflation. Milei gave a chainsaw to Musk as a gift for DOGE.
I know three things about Scott Adams. He wrote comics, he wrote management books, he was passionate about his politics. He clearly very much wanted his politics to be part of his public persona, why is it wrong to make it part of the three things one eulogizes about him?
Adams' political views were highly distasteful to me, but I think it's important to recognize all facets of a person. One can appreciate one aspect and hate the other. It's ok to have mixed feelings.
I'm not above ad hominem, so I'll point out that Young's own views are also not without obvious political leanings.
A much better point about the poll was made in Slate[1]:
> Rasmussen said 13 percent of poll respondents were Black, so about 130 people. If we take the results entirely at face value—which I’d discourage—that means it found about 34 Black people who answered “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “It’s OK to be white.” We have no more information about why.
Although they also allow people the benefit of the doubt by presuming they know the context behind a catchphrase that a) knowledge of is a sign of being online far more than the average, and b) is designed to show bias in anyone who opposes it. That's how biased these journalists are, they don't even notice the trap, they stand in it and brazenly opine on it.
Because everybody is scared of being cancelled or doxxed by the angry mob. Because everything you write online will be out there forever and it's smart to be concerned of being branded guilty by association in some dystopian-but-not-unlikely future.
It's better to read of what he thought of and learn from that, than to try to align oneself to the weird anti-human reaction his passing has raised from the woodwork.
Solid advice overall. But I have to disagree with the 401k advice.
> Fund your company 401K to the maximum.
Fund it up to amount your company matches. The maximum you can contribute to 401k is 40% of your salary I believe. I wouldn't contribute 40% of my salary to the 401k. Just the amount your company matches ( 5% or whatever it is for your company ). That 5% match ( or whatever it is ) is free money. It would be foolish to leave it on the table.
> You reduce your taxable income and the money doesn't pay capital gains when you pull it out.
You do pay income tax on it when you pull it out though. Whether or not you come out ahead depends at least partially on your marginal tax rates before and after retirement.
Not American, but as I understand it, 401k's are tied to your employers 401k implementation and while you are employed you have little choice in how the funds are managed. If you are contributing to a third party managed fund (employer or otherwise) that is not being matched, then you are ceding control of your retirement funds for no practical benefit. You would be better off putting your savings into another tax shelter appropriate to your needs that you can control.
If you aren't getting a matching benefit or other reward for using an employer managed investment, then you shouldn't. If someone doesn't have the time, inclination, or knowledge to understand the difference then investing in an unmatched 401k is still better than not saving at all :S
This is incorrect. First off, you do control your retirement funds. The amount of control varies, but at the very least you are offered dozens of mutual funds, indexed funds and bond funds to choose from. Some companies allow offer Fidelity BrokerageLink which allow you to invest in anything including individual stocks.
Secondly, as far as "another tax shelter" there aren't any. For most people the only tax shelter available is 401(k). And the tax shelter is a very good reason to contribute to 401(k), even if there is no company match.
Right, it is much lower, and also there is this: If your company offers a 401(k), the IRS limits your ability to deduct Traditional IRA contributions from your taxes based on your income.
Tacking on, in evangelical circles Dave Ramsey's financial peace university talks about saving 15% of retirement when getting out of debt and generally working through that list, then once you have paid off the house, build more retirement wealth as you desire...most of us don't get to that point until later in life.
There is also the rent vs buy calculation to take into account, depend on where you live, it might make more sense to rent and invest the difference than buying.
Every 401K I've been in has had some choice in investments. Even if they don't, you'd have to assume that you could do better actively managing your own funds in another tax shelter than the "S&P 500 index" or whatever the 401K is doing. For most people, this is unlikely.
If a venomous snake bites you, you die. If you bite a venomous snake, you live.
If a poisonous snake bites you, you will. If you bite a poisonous snake, you die.
Or Hamlet's mother died by drinking poisoned wine. Hamlet died by being stabbed with an envenomed sword.
Thought we'd have replaceable eyes, teeth, hair, etc by now. When your vision goes, instead of getting new contacts or glasses, just replace your eyes with a new pair. You have cavities, just replace your tooth with another. The promise of genetic sequencing and research just hasn't panned out.
The big difference is the falkland islands are populated by brits loyal to britain whereas Greenland is populated by greenlanders who hate denmark because the danes committed many acts of genocide against greenlanders.
> I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the falkland islands?
There are people who have been born and brought up in the Falkland Islands and have connections going back generations. They have been there longer than anyone else, and the islands had no previous indigenous population before France first colonised them.
As to whether they are native, that is a whole other can of worms, but they are more rooted to there than people who live in continental South America. Geographically they can't claim to be British but by sympathy they are. Things were shifting in Argentina's favour until the invasion.
By the way, this does apply to a certain percentage of Greenlanders. There are a few European Greenlanders, or people of recent mixed heritage so we could make similar arguments about them.
That’s why slavery “no longer exists in the US” (up for debate). That’s not what makes it morally unacceptable. Force doesn’t determine morality. It determines what happens. Your statement amounts to a tautology: “whatever happens is what happens”
And by the way, that’s not even the whole story. The civil rights movement succeeded without force or violence for the most part. So your whole framework is pretty flimsy I think.
I think that was the joke. It's obvious Star Wars stole a lot of ideas from Dune. But many people think it's the opposite since star wars predates the Dune movies.
reply