Lurker > bigblu89

Ivany2008 posted...

I think people seem to forget that your not just getting Poker skills. Your getting the skills and abilities of the best Poker player ever. Ergo, bluffing, knowing when people are bullshitting you, keeping a straight face when your lying, card counting, being able to see things most people wouldn't, etc. A lot of which can be transferred into other fields.

Hell, many jobs these days will accept WoW guild leader as a viable skill these days because it shows leadership, problem solving etc. By gaining the skills and abilities of the best Poker player ever, your essentially turning into Monk from the tv show Monk.

I think people were just blinded by the "$30k to do nothing" option and went with that.

I gotta assume people just don't know exactly what it means when the country is in a recession.

People just assume "recession" means "I can't afford stuff".

Which part?

The part where Crack wiped out entire neighborhoods?
The part where we pretended AIDS was just a "gay and junkie" problem?
The part where the major divide between the have and have nots started?

Or do we just want to bring back the music?

But on topic, probably Cleo Dookieslide.

It's rare to introduce yourself using both first and last name, so telling people your name is "Cleo" is a lot better than telling people your name is "Sharty".

Plus, I assume "Cleo Dookieslide" is a woman, so once they get married, they can just take their husband's last name.

I'm a big fan of the show, and was "friends of friends of friends" with two of the guys before the show started so I've been supporting from the jump, but it does sometimes feel like it's just the same show over and over again.

But it's incredibly cheap to make, so as long as people keep watching, and keep showing up when they go on tour, it's not stopping anytime soon. They're already signed on for another season.

Evening_Dragon posted...

I hate the aesthetic of this, but I can't actually find fault in the logic. That she is such a way I'd their Gault. Either she was raised to be that way, or she was born that way, and they are responsible for both.

The odd thing is, neither of her parents, nor her brother, are like this.

My uncle retired at 45 (firefighter), got another job (investigator for Geico) and then retired again at 60. My aunt is still working at 65 (retiring this month). Her brother was in the workforce and out of the house by 25.

Do her parents enable her? Absolutely. It wouldnt be happening otherwise. But I feel theres a difference between Mom and Dad will be there to cover my oh shit moments and Mom and Dad SHOULD be covering everything, because I didnt ask to be here

MagiMarthKoopa posted...

30k

poker is a luck based game so there are no skills/talent to gain

This couldnt be further from the truth.

Do you think its a coincidence that the same guys are playing in the final weekend of the WS of Poker every year? Of the thousands that enter? Are they just the 40 luckiest guys in the world?

I HATE THIS SAYING. Like, with a passion.

Mainly becasue it's the sole reason my cousin gives for basically ANYTHING that doesn't go her way.

She's very "My parents decided to have me, so I see no reason why they shouldn't still be supporting me at 35 whenever I need their help".

Car needs new tires? My uncle buys them because "I only have this car to get me to the job that YOU made me get!"

UberEats every meal, passes the CC Bill to her Mom. "You're the parent. It's your job to feed your children."

It's infuriating.

And then when people (admitted, rudely) asks her why she's still single and if she's met anyone, she has the never to say "I don't need anyone. I can take care of myself. I'm all that I need!"

Ivany2008 posted...

Why would anyone in their right mind take 30k? In the world of professional poker that's literal change. Even if you don't like Poker (I'm more of a Blackjack lover myself), you can earn more than 30k in a single night.

People are lazy

ShaneMcComez posted...

Poker is like roughly 80% luck, 20% skill. Sure, being skilled in poker can get you consistently a little far into tournaments, but there's also plenty of other skilled poker players out there and you really need to be lucky to get enough good hands to win tournaments.

Just give me the 30 grand.

If you have the skills and talent of the best poker player ever, you can play in low level tournaments that the best of the best don't even bother playing in. You'd be playing against "weekend warrior" players and none of the big players you see on TV.

You can easily make 30 grand a month doing that.

And you probably have the Luck/Skill percentages reversed.

QTEs randomly dropped into cutscenes in games where QTEs aren't used otherwise can be a little annoying.

Like in Marvel's Spider-Man 2. I'm watching a crazy scene of Spidey trying to save people on a runaway rollercoaster, and 5 minutes into the scene have to randomly press square to dodge an arrow? What does that add to the game other than forcing the player to pay attention to the scene?

Yeah but Trump (insert one of the billion stupid things Trump has said or done).

archizzy posted...

Never. From my earliest memory I knew 100% what I was. Never once doubted that.

Same.

Can I admit another man is handsome/good looking? Absolutely.

Have I ever been attracted to one? No.

Kradek posted...

I was one of those people who would never let the volume setting be on an odd number. In my mid-20s I finally just thought to myself "why do I even care about this? It shouldn't be a big deal" and started forcing myself to use odd numbers to break the habit. Now it truly doesn't matter to me if it's even or odd and I'm glad I removed that illogical part of myself.

Im 46 and still havent shaken this one

LeoRavus posted...

I wouldn't want to be famous.

Famous but only in the circle of the game.

Poker isnt what it was 15 years ago, where the best players became household names for a few years. Youll be well know within the gaming circles, and thats only if you play in the big tournaments.

If you bounce around casinos playing in the weekday tournaments where the prizes are 5 grand, no one will have any idea who you are.

You can easily make a nice mid 6 figure salary playing in $1-5 thousand buy in tournaments every week.

LeoRavus posted...

I hate poker and if you keep winning someone will probably kill you.

Why? If you play in organized games sanctioned by the WSOP, and win the money legit, you just (at worse) become a famous poker player

I assume that says $30,000.

I'll take the skills. Might be a small grind, but I can make MUCH more that that hustling tourists in Atlantic City every few weekends

Deal.

Says nothing about having to play it.

Ill just walk 15-20 feet behind them. Theyd assume nothing

Man, I wish an ugly painting of myself going public was my biggest worry as a billionaire

BewmHedshot posted...

Being polite doesn't cost anything, and frequently has benefits.

See my sig

Madden.

I guess Id have to live a year in MetLife Stadium?

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. My original statement was:

To which you replied

Despite that being a literal impossible outcome of consuming more corn.

I tried to explain that to you here:

But you didn't seem to believe me.

First off, that wasn't me that said it. And second, that guy was (most likely) saying it as a joke. A joke you clearly took literal, as I don't think that there's a single intelligent human out there that thinks HFCS is naturally in corn.

He responded "Un huh" to your statement of "You can't get HFCS from literal corn." which can be read as "HFCS isn't made with corn".

Tyranthraxus posted...

That's specifically High Fructose Corn Syrup / HFCS which you cannot get from literal corn. I asked about the stuff actually in the corn, aka "Corn Syrup" without the high fructose part.

You see, the amount of fructose in Corn Syrup is actually *drumroll* 0! It is literally 100% glucose. The only way to make HFCS is to first extract Corn Syrup from corn then add pure fructose into it until you get to approximately a 45-55% fructose-glucose ratio. No matter how much corn you eat or whatever the form it takes, whether it's on the cob, popped, grits, cornbread, etc, it has zero HFCS (unless you cook it with something that uses HFCS as an additive).

I still don't get your point.

Your original statement was "You can't get HFCS from literal corn." and then switched to "Why don't you take a guess at how much fructose is in Corn Syrup?"

So, exactly what were you trying to accomplish by making that first statement and then following it up with a question that had nothing to do with the original statement.

While yes, there is no HFCS in an ear of corn, I don't think anyone was arguing that statement to begin with.

I feel the point was that more foods will end up having HFCS in it. Becasue many vegan foods are filled with sugars and additives.

Vegan doesn't necessarily mean organic.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes. Guess how much fructose is in corn syrup.

It's about half. Either 42 or 55% depending on which one you use.

So what's your point?

Sufferedphoenix posted...

So let's play the mental gymnastics. Never said we couldn't kill them just said we couldn't eat them.

I understand that.

My argument isn't whether or not it is something we could accomplish as a species, my argument was that if it was something that were to happen instantaneously overnight, it would kinda throw the world in chaos.

That's all.

Unless, and maybe this is where the disconnect is, someone waived a magic wand and all the farmers that were raising animals for consumption are now growing corn, soy, and the like. All the grocery stores magically have all vegan products, all the truck drivers that haul meat and livestock are now just hauling vegan products, etc. then that's different. My viewpoint was that the wand was waived AND THEN, the world had to adapt to the change.

Although the OP is kinda contradictory, becasue being Vegan is more than just not eating meat, and I was going by the pure definition of what a true Vegan lifestyle is. Meaning using NO products that contain animal or animal biproducts.

Im not going to keep going back and forth about this. Its bad enough I get yelled on here for disagreeing with someone, Im not going to sit here and have my words be met with snark and sarcasm by someone I actually (partially) agree with.

Ill just leave it as youre being extremely short sighted if you think the overnight stoppage of 100 billion pounds of meat for consumption isnt going to cause widespread issues across the world, ones that will last more than a few months.

Tyranthraxus posted...

This may be a surprise to you but Tyson, ConAgra, and other "big farma" execs are also stupidly rich and can rehire most of their employees. The only ones they can't rehire would be the ones that have skills exclusive to meat processing. Most of the labor is tied up in agriculture to make feed for the animals and sanitization which can be put right back to work.

Rehire them to do what? They would all have to retrain in production processes that a majority of people do not know.

Youre asking them to completely overhaul production OVERNIGHT. It would cause widespread chaos across multiple industries. Production, transportation, marketing, distribution, etc.

For what seems to be the dozenth time, Im not saying it couldnt/shouldn't be done. Im saying doing it in an instant/overnight scenario would cause chaos.

Pikachuchupika posted...

I like the sounds and the feelings from the 80s. Modern stuff just isn't as good.

Especially the coke.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I mean I've got $50 billion. I can afford to hire 10 thousand people to work on new sustainable farming.

If I paid all 10,000 people 50k a year it would be 1% of my money

Ok. Great. That covers about 7% of Tyson's employees. What about the other 129 thousand, plus the 10 thousand Perdue employees, 5500 Butterball employees, and the countless amount of farmers that will need to overhaul their process overnight, I assume on their own dime if it were up to you?

Again, you're arguing against someone that agrees with you that it can be done, but from an infrastructure standpoint, can't be done with a flip of a switch.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I mean I don't think any one farm, Even a factory farm, has a billion animals. They're already going to be distributed throughout the world geographically. Some places will have higher concentrations initially but even if you just killed them all and left there still wouldn't be a "pile of billions of corpses."

Right. And then we just tell the thousands of farms that employ tens of thousands of people Sorry, Joe Smith wanted $50 Billion so youre all unemployed now. Enjoy your Impossible Whopper

Like is said, Im all for a move to a more vegetarian/vegan lifestyle worldwide, especially if Im the one getting the $50 billion.

But if its an instant light switch change, Id probably say no.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's all bio matter so it gets used as fertilizer for crops.

I mean more about how to get it distributed, as opposed it it just being a giant pile of billions of rotting animal corpses.

Like basically everyone has said, it would have to be a gradual move, not an overnight one.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i hear what you're saying, i just don't think it applies to this scenario.

why not enact a one time, final slaughter and use that as the final round of meat? and where did you get this notion that they would 'have' to be released into the wild? we could slaughter them and dispose of the corpses if we couldn't use them for other things

Becasue that's not how slaughterhouses work, considering 90% of the animals marked for slaughter are still on the farm being raised.

And where exactly would you like to disposed of the billions and billion of "corpses" that come from this overnight slaughter?

Plus, animals are slaughtered for reason other than food. So while the world eventually going vegan (foodwise) would be great, animal biproduct would still be needed.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

or they would just be slaughtered, which is what would have happened anyway. the benefit being that no more will suffer after that, instead of a continual process of slaughtering billions of living creatures over and over and over.

92.2 billion animals are slaughtered for food every year. this would put a permanent stop to that

https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/more-animals-ever-922-billion-are-used-and-killed-each-year-food

Ok. That's all well and good. Which, AGAIN, is why I said it would have to be a gradual move towards veganism, becasue releasing them all into the wild all at once would kill off more of them anyway.

I swear, people on here would rather dig their heels in and double down on their viewpoint before admitting that they may even slightly not understand what is being said, just becasue they don't agree with it.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'm pretty sure TC just meant humans go vegan. Not positive but most people would just assume that but people on the internet seem to enjoy mental gymnastics

Even still, if it was just humans, if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was instantly vegan, it would mean about 3.5 BILLION grazing animals and another 19 BILLION chicken that were marked for slaughter would be released into the wild, where most would starve to death or be eaten by predators.

If you want that on on your conscious, enjoy.

Which is why I originally said it would be a disaster if you just flipped a switch. It would have to be a gradual move towards veganism over the course of many years, even decades.

ClayGuida posted...

Win win?

Yeah. Other than the world's ecosystem collapsing, it's definitely a "win-win".

Only if the switch is gradual, as an automatic switch would cause too many issues globally.

Revelation34 posted...

7 is around when most people are dropping their kids off for school.

Probably. But everyone's schedule is different. My kids are 16 and 18 and get themselves ready for school on their own.

Currently, they're both out the door before I even get out of bed. They need to be in school by 7:20. I don't have to be at work till 9.

Also, let's not act like the whole world works a 9-5. People with kids work all sorts of odd hours and make it work. This would be no different.

Again, this is a 5 year (or longer, of you choose to) sacrifice for the luxury of never having to worry about money again. As opposed to Option 1, where you may not be able to work for a few years, but eventually, with inflation, that $60k a year may not even be enough to get by without having to go back to work.

Kradek posted...

You're giving an incredibly disingenuous take on why people "turned on him", though that's not unexpected from you.

Maybe. I just remember him being OK with everyone when he was the guy that had a countdown clock to when Bush Jr was out of office, would call Trump a "whiny little bitch" on a weekly basis, and would have Ann Coulter on for no reason other than to expose how much of a moron she is.

But the second he was "Some of these millennials really need to look in the mirror" people's opinion of him really changed.

I'm not defending him, AT ALL. I never really found him all that amusing, as most of his comedy is VERY low hanging fruit stuff. But his type of comedy (put up a mirror to the audience to see how ugly it can be sometimes) doesn't fly around here.

Kradek posted...

It's not about his age, it's about the shitty takes he's insisted on giving and defending because he refuses to believe that his style of comedy from the 90s isn't flying in 2024.

Well, he's 68 now, so when he turned 60 was right around where he started calling out "our side" for our BS as well, and that's around when CE turned on him.

Bill Maher, but not until he turned 60

Villain_S_Fiend posted...

I think a lot of this comes down to how to plan to live. If your goal is to live simply and modestly, you can make investments with the monthly $5k too, and carry on that modest life. If you're the type that wants to live more extravagantly, or just burn money however you feel, then the years-long blast of a 12/6 work schedule is probably what you're inclined to go for.

I'll take the modest life filled with time on my hands for my own pursuits.

I posted this back on the first page, but bears repeating. This was in the original discussion when I saw this scenario:

If you choose option 1, you value time and freedom. The ability to live life on your own terms. You also probably value time spent with friends and family, and have a lot of hobbies.

If you choose option 2, you probably live by the motto: do the hard things now for an easy life later. You're not happy with the status quo, and you always want more for yourself.

Her views would stay where they are.

She wouldn't be able to do much to move the country as a whole towards her views though. Too much of the "establishment" would be pushing back at her.

bigblu89 posted...

Deal. I take the $50 Million, take the car, buy a plot of land, build a house around the car, gut the car and put a mattress in it, and just use it as a bed.

Follow up after hitting the randomizer.

Can easily gut that and fit a full size mattress in there.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0bdb2720.jpg

Queen
Drago

Deal. I take the $50 Million, take the car, buy a plot of land, build a house around the car, gut the car and put a mattress in it, and just use it as a bed.

I can probably find a way to monetize the crystals into way more than a million, so I'll go with those.

Can I pick a set of dates?

Like September of 1995 though September of 1996, so I can relive my senior year of High School?

If not, I'll take 1997, that's the year I met my eventual wife, and had quite possibly the best summer of my life.

Also, can I go back knowing what I know now? Not necessarily to make money gambling or anything, but to know things about my friends and girls I liked back then that I know now but didn't know then, with the possibility to re-write some history? Or is is simply go back and just relive the year like it was a new experience?

reincarnator07 posted...

60 hours a week for 5 years sounds like absolute hell. There's no point in having money if you don't have time to do stuff with it. On top of that, $60k/yr is already way more than the average American gets. If you just invested $20k/yr, you'd still be ahead of the average American as well as having some savings and oodles of spare time.

It's 60 hours of office work, where we all know half the time is just dicking around.

Instead of working a 9 to 5, you work a 7 to 7. As someone that's worked at a desk/in an office for 25+ years, that's cake to get though for 5 years knowing when it's done you'll have enough money to retire one (assuming you invest properly).