quantumBerry

Yes, because nothing would ruin Albania or Georgia more than a few tech workers siphoning profits from US into their local economies.

At an individual level, one could be a good husband and father and be non-monogamous. At an individual level, one could also be a good monogamous husband and father. I agree with you there, although I think the expectations for most (but not all) people in western nations is that their wife/husband will be "faithful" in the traditional sense. If most wives expect most husbands to be monogomous, it starts to look like the _average_ person who is "unfaithful" is a "bad" husband by definition of the wife (even if they care deeply for their wife and any children). This also suffers from the network effect that even if the wife is ok with non-monogamy, family and friends could still shame her into being negatively effected by any non-monogamous actions in the marriage.

At a population level, it's hardly even up for debate that humans are not monogamous. This has been researched ad nauseum, although I am too lazy at the moment to dig up the research at the moment.

A woman takes 9 months to birth a child, and up until very recently had some serious risk during childbirth. The dude just has to shoot his load. This imbalance in reproductive investment predates modern human concept of monogamy.

> if a woman knows she is only ever allowed to have one partner

If each woman and each man can only choose one partner, i would expect the choosiness of men and women to become much more equal, because the reproductive investment of the man and the woman start to look a lot more equal (a lifetime investment for each). In reality we know that humans historically have not really been monogamous creatures, even in societies that are nominally so.

They were censored? How is this even controversial? Females have a biological incentive to be more choosy than men as their reproductive investment is much higher -- it seems obvious that the result is rational from a biological perspective.

Agreed. I revise my statement:

What the court imposes is more of a penalty and incentive for divorce, than a representation on what a wife costs.

What the court imposes is more of a penalty on divorce, than a representation on what a wife costs.

For instance, we used to make a little money when I married my wife, now we make a lot more. We didn't change our lifestyle or spending, nor what we spent on the child. Just savings increased, none of which we planned to give to the child. But now the child support calculator says I owe a lot more after a divorce, which is supposed to be money for the child. If the cost of the child didn't go up, it makes no sense the child support would go up when you earn more money, but it does. It's just a penalty on whoever earns more or doesn't take the child, as societies way of getting even for violating Christian norms.

That explanation does make sense. But Shitlassian guy did talk about things that were done wrong to other people, so I'm not sure he'd be able to pass this test.

Thank you! This was many years ago, and I've held several jobs since then, 1000+ miles away from there now. It has not impacted my career the slightest, but thank you for your concern! I don't have some superiority complex against those making a median wage, so your sarcasm really isn't an insult at all. It's quite a good living, and I don't begrudge those making more.

I appreciate your honesty that it is complete conjecture on your part that the 2 months hadn't been coordinated.

If it's your first job, then sure maybe.

I've done something similar, walking off a bad job at the most critical time they needed me. Would you like to know what happened? I used one of my many other references, and within two weeks I had a job for 20% more money making six figures. Your value isn't attached to what some idiot CEO thinks of you.

>Sure. Leave of two months should obviously be coordinated with your leadership, which this person didn't do.

How do you know that individual wasn't approved for the 2 months? I missed that part of the story. Do you not believe an employee has the right to resign from a job, or are they a slave for a certain period of time after taking a vacation?

>Think you can take two months off and disappear? Nope.

Apparently you can, because he did, and it worked.

I'm not sure it works like that. You may get away with it, assuming the lawyer never reveals your intent, but this sounds a lot like the "security" extortion rackets of the mob:

"Hey thought you should know, my 'security' company is currently for hire for businesses around town. We heard through the underground grapevine that a lot of folks may lose some product in their bodegas next month. Anyway, nice to introduce you to my 'security' business -- have a great month!"

If you revealed that your true intent was blackmail, and that's what this is, to your lawyer or anyone else then I imagine the intent in combination with the act is enough to nail you.

>I worked at a startup where the CEO reverted the unlimited PTO because one asshole engineer took 2 months off paid leave and then came back and quit immediately.

The CEO made a dumb bet and lost. You can't be mad when you offer unlimited PTO and people use it.

I have done this for a company who was knowingly making materially false information to investors. The company merely asked glassdoor to remove it, and they did. It's probably not worth the liability to glassdoor to have reviews that actually show material deficiencies in a company, like lying about benefits.

I've also done this on yelp when I was working as a contractor when I should have been an employee. The company informed yelp I was an employee, so my review was removed (yelp only has a policy employees cannot leave reviews, they had no such policy for independent contractors at the time I left the review). This was doubly insulting because I tried to inform yelp the entire reason I left a review was because I _should_ have been an employee and not a contractor, and yelp informed me I was actually an employee so I could not use their platform!

I also disagree about it being a career ender to publicly reveal serious dishonesty in your employer. The company I work for now usually laughs when I talk about all the shit I've been through and spoken of ( I worked for two very dishonest companies, out of the dozen or so I've been with). If you work for honest people, then they have a vested interest in the dishonest being exposed (its good for their business).

>You inform the company (through your lawyer) that their options are a settlement with you in exchange for keeping quiet, or public airing of dirty laundry

That sounds like blackmail/extortion. I'm not a lawyer, but the first amendment should protect you pretty well from merely making truthful accusations, but once you threaten money in exchange for not making them it could be construed as a very serious crime.

Thank you for the sober and measured response.

I must say though, that US fiat has cratered since being pulled off the gold standard around 1971, and the purchasing power is always declining.

It seems like some cryptos fill a similar niche gold and silver fills in the physical world. While any individual crypto could be a pump-and-dump , the basket of all cryptos represent a concept that I'm confident enough in to wager will retain utility for our foreseeable lifetimes.

No one is going to give you advice on how to break the law, but a google search doesn't come up dry on nations full of illegal immigrants that tend to be overlooked unless they commit some grave crime or have a very serious political enemy. It's also worth knowing that strict immigration law and power of the government to enforce it don't really go hand in hand in many shitty 3rd world countries, and in some countries the law really only extends to bigger cities where federal police have power.

That only works if you have no wealth. If you have any wealth, you should diversify it. Only a fool would dump all their money into crypto, but also only a fool would put all their eggs into the basket of unbacked fiat. You're just picking which game to play, and hoping you play enough games with even enough odds that you don't lose too many at once.

If you're 40 years old you may have 15,000 days left. If you're in hiding you're probably not looking to buy property or anything registering your assets. I can't imagine it'd be that difficult to cash out a few hundred a day in some place like Argentina which has lots of non-KYC ATMs and folks exchanging crypto. A few hundred a day is plenty enough to live the rest of your life in luxury, if crypto in whatever stable coin you're able to hold doesn't completely crash.

Remember 10 million is a lot of money, but that's really only like 700 dollars a day for 40 years. Basically enough for a luxury hotel, great meals, and a nice hooker at the end of the night every single day.

How do I know if I'm in a speculative bubble?

How about the tyranny of being forced to pay taxes to blow up little kids in Afghanistan at $40k+ a bomb, or the tyranny of being forced under penalty of prison to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons for the Taliban?

You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?

The government forcibly causing you to be fired from your job because you do not want your body forcefully penetrated against your will, is far from an inconvenience -- it's being shoved into poverty. There are individuals who could die of anaphylaxis or thrombosis from the vaccine if they are predisposed, and issuing mandates that fail to adequately screen for these predispositions is tyrannical.

>Drunk driving is a crime

In someplace like Texas drunk driving is only a crime in limited circumstances, like driving in public. You could go to somewhere private, like an employer's private gated parking lot that is accessible to 100 employees but not the public, and you could not get a DUI. By the same token that it would be tyrannical for drunk driving to be a crime on private area of private property, it is quite tyrannical to enforce covid vaccines on facilities with 100 employees voluntarily engaging in employment on private property.

I live in the US. Here the police do extort, union representatives have been murdered, and Ben Franklin's own grandson was jailed for criticizing our president adams. However we are certainly pretty low on the authoritarian spectrum, compared to many other countries.

Our own military has done quite horrible things to US citizens, including killing and jailing them in foreign detention centers.

Having spent time in "authoritarian countries", I can tell you even in those countries the common man can often criticize leaders in private, and as I foreigner I have had them confide in me about problems in their country. So it isn't some defense to say that because the common man can complain, it isn't authoritarian.

>And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.

Despite the dooms-dayers on the internet and media, virtually the same has happened in the US. Nowadays almost all the deaths are the unvaccinated, which for the vast vast majority of them that was their own voluntary decision.

Of course not in all cases can we prove that the health issues are 100% the shot, but it looks extremely likely the shot causes health issues in rare cases [1]:

  -Anaphalaxysis in 2-5 per million peoples

  -Thrombosis (2 reported cases from J&J)

  -Myocarditis / Pericarditis : 854 confirmed

The benefits appear to far exceed the risk at the population level. But that's not much consolation at the individual level if you are someone predisposed to anaphylaxis or thrombosis, which are potentially life threatening, in which case at the individual level the vaccine may look to not be worth the risks. Better screening tools could help identify individuals with these risks.

I'm also not sure there are any mRNA vaccines for which we have to compare in humans that have been out few years and FDA approved. It is my understanding the COVID vaccine was the first widely distributed mRNA vaccine in humans. I have no reason to believe they are dangerous, but they are lacking any long term studies in humans on any large scale.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

10 years later, wife believes I have acquired a mistress. She files divorce, and my bank statements are entered into the court as part of the divorce proceedings. The baguette vendor I visit every night when i sneak out to buy a baguette happens to be located next to the alleged mistresse's address (wife believes I was banging her and eating baguettes, in reality the only temptress was the baguette's vendor's sweet sweet tales of doughy goodness), and now in a number of US states I now owe her increased alimony for a "fault" divorce.

I walk sadly down to the baguette shop, sobbing into my smartphone, where I beg using my tiny remains after the divorce proceeding to buy just one stale baguette. The shopkeep takes pity and pulls last weeks remains out of the trash bin.

As the salt of my tears mix with the mold of the stale baguette, I sit in torment "why didn't I pay in Monero!"

-------- Epilogue -------

3 months later, I join the legion etrangere, the last respite for a soul with no money, no skills, and no baguettes. I have no family to miss me, and any wages I get in the civilian life are garnished. I'm deployed to Mali, a land of no baguettes. 5 more days until I finally get my 200 Euro's pay -- I finally can order a baguette. I hear a loud sound. Several tribesman surround me with pointed sticks. My FAL jams, and I feel the warm fiery sensation of the sticks piercing my organs, as the life force drains out of me. One more baguette was all I wanted. If only I had bought my baguettes with a fungible untraceable currency.

What if your wife hates your baguette habit and she reads your joint bank statements.

You mean the government may have to rely on old fashioned police work, like undercover agents or informants witnessing the illegimate activity rather than passively spying on financial transactions? Say it ain't so!

You claimed " your transactions are private until the court authorizes the police obtain them on the basis of probable cause."

It's not really interesting re-hashing an outright lie from someone who knows better.