dottjt

I think the "nothing I can do will change anything" is actually a predominant theme that's emerged over the past decade. I don't know if you've watched any of Adam Curtis' documentaries, but his documentary HyperNormalisation explores this in great detail (most of this documentaries have a similar theme I've found).

Edit: Apologies, I think I mean his documentary: Can't Get You Out of My Head. Essentially it asserts that all revolutions fail, because the people who attempt to overthrow simply become the new guard.

Does this exclude Australia?

This comment is completely ignorant of at least the past 80+ years of Middle East history.

When I was a lot younger I built a very big and complex platform with Phoenix. Although it was a technical marvel, it's one of my big regrets as far as the tech stack I went with, because it's now useless for my actual work now a decade later.

In retrospect, I wish I had built it with C#/.NET

The technical term for what you're broadly describing is Jevons Paradox.

Which debrid service do you use?

Not to justify this, but is this possibly the reason why those opportunities existed?

Of course. But obviously I wouldn't be referring to those other types of autism in this case. Why would I?

I think you're also forgetting the other aspect that allows this which is having readily available public transport.

On the flip side, maybe those traits are what lead to the existence of the emulator in the first place. Better something than nothing.

It would be great if there was something like this, but for not wearing reading glasses.

I don't know if this is paranoia, but one fear I have for high-tech Chinese products is that if a world war were to start with China, that they'd have the ability to remotely disable these kinds of products.

When you say "right" are you talking about USA right or European right?

Oh right, sorry I completely misread this.

I'm actually not sure in your case. My guess is that it's something you wouldn't need to worry about, but I don't know.

It depends if you forsee potentially having to sell before retirement. Or if it may just happen out of your own circumstances.

Hedging is all about diversification at the end of the day. So it makes sense to hedge if you're coming close to retirement age.

You also can't predict when you might need to sell you stake, so that's ultimately the value of hedging. If you're forced to sell in 5-10 years, then hedging would be valuable.

Hard question to answer without understanding your circumstances.

Ultimately the point of hedging is to diversify. So the degree you should hedge is relative to the degree with which you have exposure to your home currency. So for example, if you already own a home in that country + you already own lots of shares in that home currency, then hedging might be less important.

The recommendation I've seen is around 25% of your portfolio in hedged global equities, assuming you have another 25-30% in non-hedged global equities.

I could be misunderstanding this, but you know that you can buy ETFs that are currency hedged?

Taking Vanguard for example, VGS is global equities, but VGAD is global equities that are AUD-hedged (my home country).

The only downside is that you pay more in fees (and they're less tax efficient). People generally don't bother with it though, because on a long enough time-line currencies usually revert to their long-term average, so if you're holding for retirement there's generally little point.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive though? Why can't something healthy also not also happen to benefit corporations/lobby groups?

Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group? Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby group?

That's not happening though, hence why we need more ram.

Just because it's about surveillance doesn't mean it's a bad thing?

The fact that you need a driver's licence to drive a car, or a document to identify yourself to open a bank account is also surveillance. Yet it seems perfectly reasonable?

Maybe it's different in Europe, but at least in Australia you end up paying more at smaller shops, so I tend to avoid them. Is this the case in Europe as well?

When the alternative is the exact same thing you describe but for $0 dollars, then yes.

I think it's more shocking to people how much YouTube Premium costs.

Since so many things make no sense from a financial point of view, the only sensible strategy is to break free of the financial constraints as soon as possible. Money cannot buy you happiness, but it can buy you the freedom to pursue it.

So I think the reason why this doesn't make sense (in my mind) is because in a state of retirement i.e. financial independence, you're still just as conscious of money as you were when you were accumulating wealth. You still need to manage money no different to when you were accumulating, it's just now you're not earning.

To me the freedom I'm referring to is similar to that of childhood - where you're not worried/concerned about "the system". You're just doing your own thing in your own world. That kind of purity no amount of money can resolve, even in an early retirement scenario.

The other issue is that a lot of stuff only makes sense when you're younger. Like it's a lot difficult for example to become a travelling musician or even to travel etc.

Now of course, early retirement provides it's own kind of freedom. But I would say that it's not equivalent to the kind of "freedom" that I'm referring to, which is basically being carefree.

One can lead a meaningful, enjoyable life while also considering their finances.

This is where I disagree. I think there's a certain amount of naivety required to pursue meaningful things. There's so much in life that makes no financial sense that creates meaning. The moment you start having to think sensibly from a financial perspective, is when so many of these things no longer make sense.

Once you're plugged into the system there's almost no turning back.

I think it's actually a bad thing to think about money early on. Because it adds a layer of responsibility which I think takes away from simply enjoying life and focusing on what you might be truly passionate about.

One of the things I hate about my 30s is that I'm focused on money now and it feels like I'm not living the life that I want. It just feels like I'm preparing for death.

Which I'm not saying isn't the sensible thing to do, there's just something inherently managerial about it which doesn't seem intuitive to living a meaningful life.

I keep having issues with Proton (on steamdeck). With that said, these are primarily older games from the 90s. Modern games generally run hassle free.

Isn't this better for them in a way? Won't this reduce their hosting costs, whilst still being relevant to those who actually need deeper information?