Are you an electrician? Tell me one interesting thing about American residential electrical systems.

No, you will not “have to do it”. Either they can afford to pay a qualified person to do it, or they can’t. If they can’t afford a more expensive person, they definitely can’t afford to fire you. You are the cheap one.

Think about it: if they put themselves in this situation, they are going to end up cleaning it themselves. “Need money for rent and food”? If you have a crappy minimum wage job, you have the power. Literally no one above you wants to do your work. You can definitely tell them “no”. Do you think there’s some shortage of crappy minimum wage jobs?

Reminder to anyone still working retail: if your job description isn’t “janitor”, you don’t need to clean that up. It’s a biohazard and they can pay more expensive people with better equipment to do it.

Good. You probably don’t want a hatchet to be that sharp. You’re not going to be doing anything delicate with it. Sharp blades have the edge bend or break easily.

Good trouble.

You can do anything at… Zombo com.

Ehh, maybe. Many people are trying as hard as they can, sometimes with undiagnosed mental issues. “Act like an adult” is only good advice if you are just lazy.

Maybe “move to a cheaper area so you can afford a house” is better advice.

The first surgeons worked on cadavers like Dr. Frankenstein. They were equally as reviled.

No, I think you are confusing the two kinds of trusts: a revocable trust means you still own the money or property, an irrevocable trust means you don’t own it anymore. Either you “give it away” in an irrevocable trust (which can’t be “dissolved”), or you don’t give it away (in a revocable trust).

You are describing putting something in a revocable trust, which is not spending it or giving it away. It’s closer to just putting a label on it: “this money is for charity”. You don’t get a tax deduction unless you put the money in a irrevocable charitable trust or the charity actually receives the money (from any source, trust, whatever).

That’s giving the money away. Either you are still controlling the trusts, or you gave the money to the trusts.

You are using big words to try to sound smart, without understanding the specific details of the situation. There’s more than one group of “rich people” trading in the early market. Some are buying and others are selling. They are just moving money back and forth within the same “class” (as you understand it).

The other guy is wrong because in a situation like this there are very few buyers in the early market. He focuses only on the “rich” buyers and ignores the larger group of “rich” sellers trying to get rid of their shares. It’s much more likely that most “rich” sellers waited until the market opened because they didn’t want to sell while it was thinly traded.

So if you care about “classes”, the “rich” generally lost money because the company they already own went down in value. Maybe a few people bought at the bottom and sold when it went higher, but that was neither a large percent of “rich” investors nor a guaranteed return.

I’m explaining it to you because the other comment has a low level understanding of the specifics, while you admit you don’t understand. It’s more dangerous to think you understand something than to know your limits. I can trade in early / late markets but don’t because they have no one else there. The market has few other participants and that makes it too choppy.

Why would you think “rich people made money”? They already hold the shares and would be trying to sell. It would be impossible to sell any large amount of shares after hours directly after a huge negative issue. If you could sell (say $1 million worth), it would be at a much lower price.

That’s probably why the price dropped. The market doesn’t actually react to news, it reacts to investors buying and selling. If the price went down that means people with lots of shares are trying to get out.

Nuh uh

But that’s just a guess. It’s not necessarily true. You’re just saying “simulations might be possible, therefore they are definitely possible, therefore we are likely in a simulation”.

That’s not logically sound. You can replace “simulation” with “God” and prove the existence of God similarly. It’s just a guess.

That’s not unique to one writer. That’s almost all literature from the time period, unless it had a black author. You would have to read books by W.E.B. DuBois, or maybe Huckleberry Finn, for good portrayals of black people in literature.

This may shock and amaze you but…

there is more than one user for your product. If you don’t know that, it sounds like you either haven’t done a user survey or you haven’t created the correct user profiles (based on that survey).

Creating a “perfect UI” without asking users what they want is not good UX. It’s just masturbation. The user survey tells you that people want A B C, etc. and in which order. You should know exactly how your changes are going to be received when you release them.

Imagine a restaurant that doesn’t ask you what you want. Instead the chef tells you “This is the best food possible” and just makes what they want. That’s what developing without a user survey is like.

Lol I just checked target. You’re right. I guess I never get the “men’s shampoo”, mainly because it’s low quality with a crappy “wood” fragrance. Of course women’s deodorant is a rip-off too. Better to just look up the brand you like.

You have two separate aisles for men’s and women’s shampoo? Do you live in Saudi Arabia? In the rest of the world they’re right next to each other.

Noah is a Babylonian “deluge myth”. Judaism didn’t even exist until 1,000 years later:

It tells of how Enki, speaking through a reed wall,[v] warns the hero Atra-Hasis (‘extremely wise’) of Enlil’s plan to destroy mankind by flood, telling the hero to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with prophet Elijah in the 9th century BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism

This means that originally the flood was caused by one god and mankind was saved by another. That’s a better explanation than “God was angry but bipolar, so he saved one family and killed everyone else.”

Texas resident

Well there’s your problem.