And yet if you mix red and blue light together my brain perceives it very similarly to violet, so if the rods and cones are not doing that, what is?

Because there is no R. War has an 'r' in it, which makes the "rrr" sound at the end. Woman consists of 'wo' and "man", so that's how you pronounce it.

There are a lot of weird and inconsistent words in the English language. This is not one of them.

Billionaires mostly get richer by creating value. If they lead a company that creates $100 billion of goods (ie, the value of their product is worth $100 billion more than the value of the raw materials), and they scrape $1 billion off the top and use the remaining $99 billion to pay employees and taxes, then they are $1 billion richer. And everyone else is $99 billion richer (divided among all of the employees and customers and government, so each only sees a tiny fraction of the created value). But yeah, the billionaire got richer and you should be mostly happy about it because you're richer too. If you've ever bought a smartphone, you gained something of value (the difference between how much you like the smartphone minus the amount you paid for it), and you enriched a billionaire who owns the company that made it simultaneously. Oops oh well, at least smartphones exist and you get to buy one if you like them. Sometimes capitalism works and nobody loses (only sometimes, there are like a million caveats, but billionaires existing in theory is not one of them)

The valuation is primarily founded on expected future earnings. That is, if people predict that a company will earn lots of money in the future, then its current value right now goes up because people want a share of those future earnings.

Importantly, future money is also a gamble in some ways, because it's uncertain. If a company has a 50% chance of giving $200, but a 50% chance of giving $50 next year, then it's worth an average of $125 next year (risk averse people might discount it further because they don't like risky gambles).

So, if you think a company has the above 50-50 shot, then you would value the company at $125, and buy stock for that much. If you knew for sure it would grow, you'd buy it at $200. If you knew for sure it would shrink, you'd only buy at $50. But if you're unsure then $125 is a reasonable price. If, after buying, more information comes out that it's actually going to be unlucky and be $50, then suddenly the value of your stock will drop from $125 to $50. What happened, where did the value go?

From a certain perspective, it was never there to begin with. In some sense the company was always destined to be worth $50 next year and your valuation of $125 was incorrect based on imperfect information. It was always truly worth $50 and you simply overestimated it.

From this perspective, the investor lost $75, which was gained by whoever sold them the overpriced stock, because they sold stock which was truly worth $50 for the price of $125, and got out of the market before the truth was discovered.

From another perspective, maybe the company truly has a real possibility of being worth $50 or $200, and even though your information is imperfect, it's not random, it's based on decisions made by the company and the economy overall. There is a possible future in which it is worth $200 next year because it genuinely produces and sells $200 worth of goods, and another future in which it makes poor decisions and only produces and sells $50 worth of goods. If the government makes some sort of regulation that cripples the business, or the CEO botches a decision, or some competitor springs up and outcompetes them, then they lose the lucrative future and gain the poor future. From this perspective then, potential value is being destroyed in the future. That is, they had $200 worth of opportunity and they lost it. Value that people thought would be created was not. If somebody creates a virus that will inevitably kill all the corn plants five months from now, the valuation of farms will plummet in anticipation of the lost value that was supposed to be created but will instead be destroyed, despite the fact that it hasn't physically been destroyed yet.

Tech is a growing industry. People expect it to make even more money in the future than it is now, and anything that changes those expectations will change current valuations immediately, because people are planning for the future and pricing it into their investments ahead of time. Investors lost $400 billion of potential value because we used to think the stuff they had was going to be super valuable and now we think it will be only somewhat valuable.

Forget video game logic where one man has to kill a hundred enemies while they keep swarming. In a "fair" fight where both sides have the same number of troops, each soldier only has to kill one enemy, ever, to "pay" for himself in efficiency terms. If you shoot 20 arrows with a 5% accuracy rate, that's fine, you've done your job. If you shoot more arrows or have higher accuracy then you profit.

Further, you don't even have to wipe out all the enemies. If they lose morale and flee after half their troops are dead then you only need half the accuracy or fire amount to pay for yourself.

A human life is kind of a big deal, firing a couple dozen arrows to kill one man can easily be efficient regardless of accuracy.