Pensions are not investment funds (for the individual employee/retiree). They are distinct from 401ks and their ilk. GP explicitly spoke about "pensions", which have almost no requirement to diversify - at least one I know of was discovered to be "invested" in luxury rugs and furniture for the CEO (Their value will go up!!! /s).
With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims.
If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?
Yes I did mean litigation (didn't know that that term was a distinction learned something today).
To my understanding the case outcome is pretty much what I would expect, even considering the first amendment raising the bar. It's also interesting that there's been so many legal shenanigans in the case that it's hard to even keep track of them all.
The principal legal shenanigan came from Jones and his team - stubbornly refusing to engage with either court via a kind of sovereign citizen "I know my first amendment rights, F- you" vibe.
That sealed the case outcome as, IIRC, at least one of the judges just ruled against them for not mounting any defence.
The moralizing parts of the conclusion of this article rejects it's own evidence. There are multiple studies cited by the article where the population average of the trans women group statistically significantly exceeds that of the cis women group. The article concludes:
"The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy. Finally, if it is found that trans individuals have advantages in certain athletic events or sports; in those cases, there will still be a question of whether this should be considered unfair, or accepted as another instance of naturally occurring variability seen in athletes already participating in these events."
Does it really insult the skill and athleticism of cis and trans athletes to exclude trans women from women's sports? I don't think it does, but the article could not help but claim that it does. Often in debates such as this one, there are multiple levels of sophistry that annoy me. Such as the sequence 1. there is no evidence that trans women have an advantage over cis women in sports (false. there is evidence) 2. if you believe that there is any evidence, you must be a bigot (well, obviously untrue, there is evidence).
Women's sports leagues often emerge due to the easy bifurcation of the population into two groups- the easiest fault line to judge this as is 1 group with the athletic benefits of natural testosterone, and 1 group without the athletic benefits of natural testosterone. People are free to make whatever sports leagues they want, and with freedom of association they can make whatever rules they want. I will just find it completely unsurprising that the women's divisions will be relatively "closed" and the men's (or more acurately the "open") divisions will include any person that has produced testosterone naturally or become a trans man (or most things in between). It's the easiest bifurcation that reduces questions of fairness. Weight classes in wrestling fall into a similar manner of thinking for me; even if it could be argued that the guy that barely couldn't make it into a lower weight class should be fighting within that class, you have to draw the line somewhere.
But we really don’t have to “draw the line” anywhere, it’s not an issue. It’s a nothing burger. Any benefits such as they might be fall well within the standard deviation of females and so the argument that’s it’s unsafe or unfair doesn’t fly, nobody talks about excluding large or tall girls from girls sports. Besides, as they say in the article once the girls have gone through gender affirming therapy and their hormones have reached normal levels nearly all of the benefits have disappeared.
The massive amount of production-oriented research in solid state and semi solid state batteries indicates to me that this stuff is coming soon in a big way. I've been curious about buying an electric car recently, and if I buy one right now it would only be a used one, don't want to fully invest in something about to be obselete.
The whole industry is always working on improved batteries. But it's a long road from lab-scale to mass production, and often improvements in one area have downsides in another.
New generations of cells that improve energy density usually start out more expensive than existing chemistries, so they show up at the high end of the market first and work their way down.
If we do get truly improved solid-state batteries available in EVs in the next 5 years, it will likely start at the high end of the market and work its way down over many years to cheaper segments as production capacity ramps up. The base model EVs aren't going to suddenly have their batteries swapped out with ones that are twice as good for the same price.
I make the same argument when I buy a computer. If I just wait a little longer, there will be a faster cheaper version of what I can buy today. When buying anything that depreciates, the best strategy is to wait (possibly forever) and only buy when you really need it now.
I hope you are right, but maybe this one is not like the previous ones. Micron leaving consumer market sounds like the real money will be on the AI hardware market.
Personally I bought my new laptop a month ago. Let's hope when I have to buy the next one this craziness will be history.
I absolutely have health insurance, the most expensive available on my state. That doesn't protect me 100%, but what health insurance (including the ones available at most companies) does?
People who have poor money management skills believe that FIRE=Ramen and no health insurance... In fact, it's about getting a 30K car (the one I bought new 3 years ago) instead a 70K car despite having the money.
And what happens when the Republican Party gut the ACA and you have a pre-existing condition. Do you know what life was like trying to get insurance with a pre-existing condition before 2012?
Obviously said by someone who is young and never had or knew anyone that had an expensive medical procedure like a friend who is 45 who I have known since 2003 and is a cancer survivor and now has to have open heart surgery
So, in your 30s? My parents both had cancer in their late 50s/early 60s (including surgery / chemo) - and paid like $15 for some pain meds in Canada.
Even on a pretty good Kaiser plan, we're paying $200+ per day in the hospital, etc. On a high-deductible, more. They say they have a $1M annual limit, but that they've never enforced it. I hope we never have to find out.
But do you want to take the chance that you will never have major medical expenses between the time you retire early and you are 65 and eligible for Medicare? How many of your friends are over 50?
Very few, I am just saying that you can sign up when you think the risk hits your threshold. I'm mid 30s and wish I hadn't had to pay the last 10yrs. Honestly, until you have ids it's unlikely you'll use it and even less likely that you can't sign up for it before a major operation.
Yes you should try to time a major medical issue or accident during the open enrollment window. You should also not have car insurance until you think you might have an accident
That plan works until it suddenly doesn't. When it doesn't it's catastrophic for your finances and your health.
If you have an extra couple million dollars above and beyond your regular retirement fund you could self-insure your medical costs. But then you could just buy the health insurance.
Medical expenses are less expensive when you don't have insurance. Insurance is just for catastrophic events, if you do some regular risk analysis you can come to a balance that works for you. If you know a major medical expense is imminent then get the insurance. Most procedures don't happen immediately anyway.
That’s not how insurance works even with the ACA. You have open enrollment is the only time you can get insurance on the open market. Good luck if you find you have a major medical issue right after open enrollment ends - which the Republican administration has shortened and you have to wait 9-10 months.
i think you can get a pretty decent prius from 5k to 10k and a fantastic nearly brand new tesla model 3 for 17K. That's what i did. it was 8 years old, practically brand new, FSD prepaid included! it drives me to work and i only paid 17K for it!
The tata nano is an example of a low-featured car that sold in India for the equivalent of $2500 in 2008 dollars. You can make a car for pretty cheap if you strip down a lot of the hardware. I think one of the reasons new cars are designed/priced the way they are in the US is that the more frugal buyers always end up buying a used car anyway, so the manufacturers don't target the low end of the market.
