BartekG

An ethical way to make money is to give products of your work to other people in exchange for their money. Cryptocurrencies produce nothing and satisfy no needs. Crypto traders take other traders' money in exchange for what? A hope that in future it will be possible to take more money from yet other traders? Crypto traders should not cry that they are victims of a pump and dump scheme because it is the same thing they wanted to do to others. I have no sympathy for them at all.

When you pay for Windows you are the product. When you don't pay for Linux, Linux is the product. The only thing that keeps me in Windows is the VPN connection to work.

As a EU citizen I think UK lost on all fronts - food industry, financial sector, manufacturing, trade, foreign policy, and others. The losses in some of those fields are already visible, in others not yet.

What are the benefits for UK banks? As far as I know they are moving jobs to EU. How is that a benefit for them and not a cost and complication?

Beware of the middle ground fallacy.

Because mercy is the opposite of justice. Justice is giving to others what they deserve - reward for achievements, punishment for crimes. Mercy is whthholding punishment for crimes and giving rewards for nothing.

Politicians wouldn't be buying votes if voters weren't selling them. The fish rots from the head and the head is "the people".

Start by considering why you want to retire - is there something you want to do that you can't do while working? If not then you condemn yourself to 10 years of hard work and living in poverty in order to be bored and live in poverty for the next 50 years. A good job can be a source of joy, achievements, self worth, contacts with people and money. I'm a programmer with a relatively low paying but stress-free job and I plan not to retire for as long as my health permits.

Freedom of speech is not a right to other people's property: you have no right to force any one to publish what you want but you have the right to start your own newspaper,tv station or a web site and publish whatever you want. YouTube is private. It's owners have the right to decide what is on it and they did. This is not a violation of free speech as some comments suggest.

A thing is good for someone for something and dropping this context is a mistake that causes superficial contradictions or an illusion of subjectivity. A picture of two cars racing on a public road can be good for the newspaper for attracting readers and bad for the police for identifying the drivers at the same time. Once we consider WHO and FOR WHAT the problem of being good becomes objective.