The one who was newly moving in and Ross got back hurt trying to hurt her stuff. Both ended up betting for 100 USD limit and scared her away, so ended up eating together in restaurant.

There are a lot of monkhoods from rich affluent families happening by a lot of highly educated and sometime often young children.

Unless you have evidence that this is a money angle, it's just a random assumption on your part without knowing whole context or any evidence..

And who's manipulating the daughter if parents are the ones who holding her supposeded money anyway and also controlling her?

Monkhood stuff is religiously important, which is not same as money.

I'm gonna be explaining this if it's clearer.

Jain people do this non sense of monkhood for children because it's reputed, there's no money stealing angle.

The stinking part is that monkhood is permanent and celibacy would be part of it. Pre pubescent children don't know what the hell they're giving up, so it's not question of forced thing either.

It's just uninformed permanent decision that shouldn't have been taken.

What did you use to make it?

This data presentation is uselessly bullshit because it's not percentage of the population. I checked the % of people above 15 years who got university degree from the same data.

I don't trust his graph as well. The data points and colors are also wrong. Christanity has 285k while buddhism has 250k. But, look at graph.. What the hell is that?

Religion                 total  male    female
Total	                 32%	32%	32%
No Religion	         46%	46%	46%
With Religion	         29%	29%	29%
-Buddhism	         25%	26%	25%
-Taoism1/	         19%	19%	19%
-Islam	                 12%	11%	13%
-Hinduism	         46%	45%	47%
-Sikhism	         36%	37%	34%
-Christianity	         48%	51%	46%
--Catholic	         45%	47%	43%
--Other Christians       50%	54%	48%
-Other Religions	 37%	42%	33%

Nah, most of the people going to university are chrisitians.

The dude didn't adjust for population, so it looks horrible.

Chess.com has listed 100 games. Their evidence has been concrete enough that he confessed as well. He said he had to cheat to gain more viewers and followers online in email with chess.com and Chess.com published that email.

He confessed that he made conscious decision to cheat against top players to gain followers on twitch/streaming.

Magnus is the top most authority on how humans play chess. He is not just gifted, he works insanely hard and he got to the top by being extremely unforgiving and harsh on himself when he made mistakes.

The idea that magnus was being a crybaby was always a joke for people familiar. And he's completely justified in drawing a line and saying he'll not play against people who cheated online or offline repeatedly.

His response and chess.com report are both extremely nuanced and very professional. People just got impatient.

Dude said he cheated twice at 12 and 16 year old in insignificant games when there was no cash prize, no streaming and 'no real matches'.

All off them were proved wrong. He cheated a lot more, much more recently and in much more serious competition.

Magnus was 100% right when he said hans cheated more and more recently than he admitted to.

It's one thing to cheat in random game, another to cheat in prizepool events and entirely another thing to downplay cheating you already confessed about on live television and insult people who gave you second chance.

I read 72 page report, hans cheated a lot and fucked up massively. Only thing helping him is that chess.com explicitly says that they don't have expertise in catching longer format and over the board cheating because they usually deal with short online games only.