Austoman t1_jcanyef wrote

What do you mean that immediately after the housing collapse people realized that there was a far larger debt bubble? Its a good thing we've spent the last 15 years reducing the bubble and preparing for the risk of it.... oh wait Im now being told we did none of that. Uh huh... we increased our debt... mm hm and further increased the bubble both for financial institutions and for the general populace via credit card debt.... glass-steagall would have really helped keep things in check.... no new safety net in place....

Huh so it turns out that we have a far larger, multi industry sweeping debt bubble both for individuals and for banks as banks lend out 10x their value to people and companies that operate on razors edge thin margins when it comes to risk absorption/adaptability. Add into that massive shorting from major institutions that if their valuations shift could result in significant margin calls leading to a cycle of loss.

Cycle of loss being that a heavily leveraged and shorting company would be forced to pull/sell their investments (bonds/stocks) to hold more liquidity/cash. Doing so usually results in a loss, especially with a declining market, thus resulting in lower than expected revaluations. The revaluations lead to the company being margin called as their collateral value declines, which would force them to close their shorts, which in turn would reduce their cash/liquidity, and the process repeats.

Soooo yeah turns out the government giving the banks a blank cheque by bailing them out in 2008 may have resulted in an far broader reaching economic collapse.


Austoman t1_ja7ykic wrote

Or 1 million soldiers die from friendly fire, starvation, environmental conditions (freezing), overdosing, disease, infighting, and general injury from poor troop movement/management with a complete breakdown of supply lines.

Attrition is a major soldier killer. Its most effective when an army is undersupplied, unprepared, and undisciplined.

Guess what the Russian army is.

All of that also ignores that zerging doesnt work when attempting to occupy a location. When the guerrilla civilian fighters are better equipped both with weapons, equipment, intelligence, and communications, you have a serious problem. Theres a reason you dont invade cities. A city on the defensive is at a significant advantage vs an invading force.


Austoman t1_j7xpz23 wrote

Looks great!

Its hard to tell if OP did this, but just to let everyone know.

If you bake a small corn tortilla and place it atop the meat/bean/cheese bottom layer it will separate it from the vegetable/condiment (sourcream usually) layer and give you the fantastic crunch in the middle of the wrap.

Usually the ratio for corn tortilla size is about 4" for a 10" flour tortilla. This allows enough flour tortilla to be able to wrap it and fry it on the pan as OP has done.


Austoman t1_j6bjs8a wrote

Interestingly enough, most of the big oil companies are actually investing pretty heavily into greener alternatives. Not because its ethical but because the massive companies that have existed for decades know how to look for trends and changes in the market. Theyve recognized that greener alternatives are becoming the way of the future, especially as tech evolves to make them more efficient, so they invest in it early to reap the rewards as it becomes the new standard.

Its a weird kind of greedily uplifting element from long term investment strategies.


Austoman t1_j5097w3 wrote

Yes she made the choice to buy alcohol, but the provider supplied it to her at their location. If she got drunk at home, went to the venue, was kicked out and crashed then thatd all be on her. But the venue provider her alcohol, enough for her to become intoxicated thus changing her from a person capable of making her own decisions reasonably to a person unable to reasonably make her own decisions (with regards to her safety and the safety of those around her). The moment that switch occurs her safety and those around her are the responsibility of the provider and removing her from the venue/location requires a safe/reasonable means of transportation. Its the same reason you cant just drop a drunk person off on the highway. Its unsafe for them and those around them. Its also the same line of logic for why an intoxicated person cant consent. They are unable to make soind decisions regarding their own safety. So, you cant kick someone out of location after getting them drunk only to have them drive a vehicle.

Its one of the bigger reason why bars take peoples keys when they order a drink.


Austoman t1_j503c0n wrote

You couldnt assume an intoxicated person would make the decision of using the phone or calling a taxi/uber. It is on the provider to do that, which is a 60 second process for a sober person to do.

Basically if they are intoxicated they are deemed to not be of sound mind and therefore you cannot assume that they would make a reasonable decision (such as calling a cab) to get home safely. Therefore the onus is on the provider to make that call.


Austoman t1_j500zhy wrote

Yup. To expand on this.

Across Canada the law (roughly) is that any alcohol provider (personal or corporate) must ensure that anyone imbibing in alcohol that they have supplied either get home safely or the responsibility is passed onto a reliable/reasonable party. That is to say a provider must also supply a safe drive home, usually a taxi or other reasonable transportation. If a provider sends a supplied individual out of their location without a responsible means of getting them home or passing the responsibility to a sober individual then any harm to the intoxicated person or done by the intoxicated person in the responsibility of the provider.

So since the venue sent this obviously intoxicated person home without providing any reasonable transportation (thus resulting in her driving drunk) any damages caused by her after being placed into a state of intoxication by the venue is the responsibility of the venue.

Basically all the venue had to do was call her a cab and it would have been fine. Someone chose to kick her out and send her into the wild while she was obviously drunk, so yeah in Canada the damage was caused by the person (company) that gave her alcohol and then kicked her out without a reasonable way of getting home.

While some may not like it there is some logic to it. If youre going to get someone drunk then they are no longer able to make soind decisions. You placed them in that position and so it is on you to get them home (within reason).


Austoman t1_j3t2sjt wrote

So i see no one talking about it.... I know this is posted to uplifting news, but it really isn't. First theres the fact that people are working into their 80s just to survive. Secondly the value of money is way less than people expect.

$100000 isn't anywhere near retirement money. Even if we simply assume he has to pay $10k a year to shelter (rent, property tax, care home expenses, or w.e), he'd run out in less than 10 years due to inflation. Moreover, that's just sheltering expenses. Power, water, food, heat and etc, on average in the US is about 6850/year [1500+600+4000+750] as of 2021 (average costs of each in US). So with that, it's about 17000/year, which gives him less than 6 years before considering inflation, insurance, medical expenses, travel (gas, bus, shuttle) and etc. So yeah 100k funding isnt enough to retire on even at 82 years old. An average person in the US will be forced to spend that within 6 years without considering many normal expenses beyond those needed to survive.


Austoman t1_j167yxq wrote

People have been protesting in varying quantities and timeframes all year in Russia. There is still a sizable amount of people who are willing to fight back against Putin in Russia. Letting the wealthy escape sanctions by fleeing to unsanctioned countries defeats part of the purpose of saod sanctions.