Yes, but buying that game a 4th time seems excessive.
Englishgrinn
joined 4 months ago
Not my kind of game, but I have friend who will be very into this.
Terrific somebody already did the work. I only got to Lemmy last month. This kind of thing might happen to me a lot...
That woman, is a dangerous gang member? THAT woman? And her screaming, terrified 18-year-old daughter who had the audacity to demand cops show a fucking warrant.
If you aren't filled with rage at this point, you're either evil, or painfully ignorant.
"Inspire" might be a better word. They're not all stupid, you know. Indoctrination doesn't care how smart you are. They get you young enough, beat the drum steady for long enough, smart people can be convinced of very stupid things.
Lets get in their face. No more false humility. Let's show them that, imperfect and broken as we are, we know a better way to do some of this stuff. Follow our lead, make your country a better place.
In before MAGAs are on your case wondering what mushrooms have to do with anything.
You hear about Pluto? That's messed up.
Ah ha - I see, we're talked over each other a bit but I think I get it now. You have to adjust for the assumed 7% in growth that would be considered "standard". We're not really at -2%, because we should be aiming for +7% at minimum. Which means the short fall is more than 4 times what it appears to be to my layman ass. I think I get it.
Right, and I can see that. But if you back out that line graph over a longer period of time, this dip would be miniscule compared to the overall upward trajectory. If the Y Axis tracking the market starts at 0 (which it wouldn't I get that, but go with me here) and the X axis tracks time and we set it to say, a 3 year period - then the result is that the line has exploded upwards. The tiny tip at the end which represents the last 6 months barely registers. The average closing price in 2023 was 34,121. The close today was 42,454. So even if the market has dropped significantly in the last few months - it's 25% higher than it was 2 years ago.
Again, I trust that people know what they're talking about. I am certain I do NOT know what I'm talking about. I am not saying I don't believe them, or that I'm right - I just want someone to explain the factor I'm missing. I have theories, but no way to confirm them because I lack the base knowledge to even phrase the question right.
Is the stock market supposed to have a "default growth" element that we have to account for? Like, is the fact that the market twice as high as it was 3 years ago an illusion because constant growth is just a necessary element of the market functioning at all? Does that default growth make longer timelines less useful as comparative tools?
Or is it that more that the market was projected to grow and then shrunk instead, so the relevant comparison isn't to history, but to projections, which is why even a small dip seems more catastrophic? Because it was supposed to continue skyrocketing.
Or am I asking the impossible? Does gaining context for the larger momentum of the stock market take a degree in finance and by asking for someone for a simple explanation I'm just further showing my ignorance?
Did it? I really can't wrap my head around trying to reconcile what the people who know about this stuff say and what the numbers on page seem to say. I'm just not smart enough. I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I've been trying to figure out the real impact of all this on the market and it honestly seems to be really minimal. Yes, it's trending down and recession seems likely and a couple days had really big drops this month - but it's nowhere near even its average, never mind its lows from the past 2 or 3 year periods. Just 3 years ago the market was at like 28,000 points. It doubled in 3 years and now that its shrinking a bit, that is a crisis? What do I not get?
This isn't so much the market "plummeting" as it looks like to me a massive bubble bursting that was based on nothing to begin with.
But then, I'm the guy who thinks "The Big Short" was a smart movie. I'll freely admit I'm a fucking moron who knows nothing about finance.
The short answer is - yes, there are a bunch of ways to be legally in the United States without a green card. These tend to be temporary, or contingent on other things, so harder to track and produce immediate evidence of.
The longer answer is, it doesn't matter. Deportation is a tool in the government's tool kit for dealing with those who entered the country illegally - but Deportation is a process, with steps, due process and it requires the ability for the potential deportee to argue their case to an immigration judge. Being grabbed by masked thugs off the street, taking a brief layover in Louisiana while they fuel the plane and then being deported to a torture facility in El Salvador without so much as ever speaking to your lawyer is a contravention of your rights. Your human rights, your 5th Amendment rights, take your pick.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, was never formally granted asylum. He missed the filing deadline of one year. However, in his original deportation trial he showed significant evidence and credible testimony that he had fled El Salvador to escape being forced to join the gang that was shaking down his family for protection money. The only reason he wasn't deported after that original hearing was that a Judge granted him hold order - stating he specifically could not be deported to El Salvador because his life would be in danger. It's unlikely he has any simple card or document that shows that order he could carry with him. In direct violation of that order, ICE sent him anyway. He's almost certainly dead.