The internet would have been really different if we had these fancy character sets instead of just ASCII in the text-only and early web days.

The large array of characters could have made for some acceptable-looking text-only websites, and even services like Telnet and Gopher could have provided a better user experience.

There were other character sets back then but they were not widely supported.

Wow I needed this last week!

Insinuating something without providing evidence or reason is just slander.

Rescuing thousands of cows will require a lot of planes.

Does it use the Twitter API?

Because it's a nottheonion-y title.

The website that published the news is a local news site.

A year ago, it was an open question

https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/rer2fl/james_bond_could_be_nonbinary_in_future_its_open/

My math was admittedly simple but illustrates a point. If I invest $1,000 a year for 10 years and a marginal 6% return, a fee of 0.04% is about $31, that's not enough to make a meaningful difference. Source . It's probably not worth fretting over.

> would you recommend someone roll money from an IRA (with good low ER funds) into TSP or a 401k? Why or why not?

No, because it probably wouldn't make a big difference.

But, it depends on the fees. In my experience, funds in IRAs tend to be higher than those in 401ks, and are usually much higher than 0.04%. That's why I argue that 401ks and the tsp are superior in many cases. Large employers have negotiating power to demand low fees. Individual investors don't get that same luxury. This is of course not universally true.

My only argument here is your statement that IRAs 'easily beat' a 401k. Funds in a 401K will often match or beat an IRA in terms of fees. I have both. I've had to go through this decision multiple times.

Sorry I have to disagree here. With expense ratios like 0.04%, you're talking like a $25 difference over a decade. The difference is trivial, and not enough to 'beat' anything. An IRA doesn't provide much benefit here.

When we say that you should seek funds with low expense ratios, we're mostly talking about unscrupulous funds, mostly managed funds, who charge more than, say, 0.25% when they earn less then the market; or the old days where expense ratios like 1% were the norm.

So yeah, an IRA might have funds with a slightly lower expense ratio. But that won't help you to beat the market. The fees for most funds in most IRAs are going to be much higher than 0.04%.

> While it is tough to beat TSP in a company 401k, it's easy to beat in an IRA, and IRAs have so much more flexibility and accessibility.

This advice doesn't sound right. An IRA doesn't have any special features that allow it to beat a 401k or the TSP.

The main advantage that IRAs have over most 401k's is access to more funds. But most of those other funds are worthless considering that the S&P 500 beats 90% of them over the long term. Add to that the very low expense ratio of 0.043% for the TSP C Fund (market index fund), and it's hard to see how an IRA can 'beat' the TSP. IRAa tend to have higher fees, except for access to some of the 0% funds like FZROX. Large employers that offer 401k/403b plans and the TSP have the negotiation power to demand lower fees for their employees. Individual investors with IRAs don't.

The C Fund (S&P 500) is a total market index fund. It's the benchmark, and is what most people use.

Worrying about the difference between a 3000-stock fund vs the S&P 500 is splitting hairs, which is why the latter considered good enough for most things. The expense ratio for the C Fund here is 0.043%, very low, and will be hard to beat. VTSAX that you mention here has an expense ratio of 0.04%, which is effectively the same.