Exactly, some people would complain about bringing back zombie threads, while others whine that people didn't use the search feature to find existing threads on the topic. You can't win either way with forum gatekeepers.
You're right, porn doesn't automatically become public domain. That would be strange. It's public domain because they willingly agreed to the site's terms of service that say so.
It is in no way nonconsensually disseminated. She uploaded the videos willingly and agreed to include them in the public domain per the terms of service of the site.
For what it's worth, I'm not the one downvoting you. I appreciate your perspective. However, if nobody can retire without the ability to pay $200k/year, very few people will ever be retiring. I believe working with patients in these terrible situations, has created a form of selection bias were you don't see the successful retirements. Not everyone needs a Fat FIRE, and I would prefer to live frugally and retire early vs working away my life until a regular retirement age.
To add to this, you are also expected to withdraw more year after year along with inflation. If your safe withdrawal rate allows you to withdraw $40,000 on year one, you can withdraw $40,800 the second year (assuming 2% inflation). Dispite this increase, your portfolio should still grow. If you are withdrawing all of your gains, you are setting yourself up for failure.
No, you always take less than the increase. This is why most FIRE plans revolve around living on 3-4%. The gain percentage minus withdrawal percentage should ideally leave you with a number greater than the losses due to inflation.
You're ignoring that your balance will increase over time through interest and stock gains. I believe this is historically around 8%, exceeding inflation.
Please feel free to point out any inconsistencies. However, there isn't any between those two statements. Here's the definition of verify for you: "to prove that something exists or is true, or to make certain that something is correct."
I'm not sure what you're talking about, nobody verified WarmSoda's claim. They doubled down that the price is still 10 cents by changing the units to oz. and everyone ate it up. WarmSoda backed off because this is a truly stupid argument, but I'm still baffled on how Nate Cox was able to get away with that mental gymnastics. I guess I can get away with selling a car to you guys claiming it only costs a dollar (per oz.)! Come on, its a really good deal, you're not going to get a car for a dollar anywhere else!!!
I'm a bit confused why everyone is dogpiling on you. You claimed that Ramen hasn't been 10 cents in decades and he comes back with a source that it is, in fact, 3 times more expensive. Given their own source, you were right.
I think there is a very important distinction between accuracy and tolerance in engineering. +/- .010" is not a dimension, but a tolerance that can be applied to a dimension. However if your example was changed to a .010" dimension, I would agree with you as I stated in my last comment. There is no need to give any further accuracy to that dimension if you are just adding zeros to the end (unless you are using block tolerances that rely on a specific number of digits to correspond with a standard tolerance). Unfortunately, not everything is designed using the same units and you will inevitably end up with a part designed in mm that uses a bolt-on component using a hole span in inches (for example, a nice round 1-in span). If you want a +/-1 mm tolerance on that part, you wouldn't want to round every dimension to the nearest mm because you may end up with a tolerance of 24-26 mm when you really wanted 24.4 to 26.4 mm. I like to provide true dimensional accuracy (to microns or .0001" if I'm not just adding zeros) and then apply a suitable tolerance independently, using GD&T.
Regarding paperless manufacturing, I agree that many components are made straight from the models these days and imported directly into a CNC machine. However, there should always be a drawing or a digital equivalent a drawing. This is the contract that specifies acceptable tolerances to the manufacturer, and it will be used during QA inspection to determine if an acceptable part has been delivered.
Lol, does that look like the norm in the graph you posted?