Interesting try but the pivot came with no setup. Try adding some visual hooks that should be disconcerting to the agent , something that would normally make the agent suspicious but he is unusually calm about what he is seeing. Also flesh out the pivot more, it's too compressed for what you are trying to convey
So you have personally poked enough holes in the article, and broken down the problem in your head sufficiently, that you are comfortable to ignore the issue.
It must be nice to love in a comfortable bubble like that.
Holy shit, what a dismissive take on the article. This exact reaction is part of the problem .
Who gives a shit about the accurate reporting of the number. How about the broader issue of a) sleep rape, proven in court, b) that rapists have published their exploits online, and C) that there is an audience for same.
My friend, I think you simply misunderstand the value of companies. Microsoft has a market cap of 2.7trillion. a wealth cap of 10m means that 270,000 people will be maxed at that cap. For one company. Who of that 270,000 runs the company?
Then extrapolate out to all listed and private companies. Your theory is incompatible with how companies operate.
Sounds good in theory. But it is inoperative in a capitalist society. Here's a thought exercise:
Management might have a salary of $5 million but stock worth 1 billion. Maybe you expect they divest their stock? Okay, who buys? Who has control of the company? Does it become a societal asset? Can't have a company run by a million-person committee.
Your wealth cap works where someone has liquidity over 100million. I suggest that few do as it's not a tax-advantaged strategy.
Interesting try but the pivot came with no setup. Try adding some visual hooks that should be disconcerting to the agent , something that would normally make the agent suspicious but he is unusually calm about what he is seeing. Also flesh out the pivot more, it's too compressed for what you are trying to convey
Yeah but - maybe he isn't American. Maybe he took you literally.
You are relying on implied context.
I'm really surprised at the upvote / downvote ratio here.
You guys are clearly talking past each other , but only you are getting the downvotes.
You've both got valid points - and entirely unrelated to each other - but they are refusing to acknowledge.
I love it but you spelt damnit wrong
Legend
OP calculation is for half of the bride/groom. Weddings typically take 2 to tango
That's... not a straw man argument. Here's a convenient definition to help you out.
My theory is that you wouldn't know how she reacts, whether poorly or otherwise, without her first being attacked.
Maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't attack the person just because they are snowflake about the content of their comic.
What a pearl-clutching take. Also known as:
Maybe, just maybe, don't attack a comic?
No... Why don't you read the article.
100%. Bandit Heeler is my guide to being a parent.
Yes it is the first, thank you for the response.
Take that argument up with the editor. It doesn't respond to the concern.
So you have personally poked enough holes in the article, and broken down the problem in your head sufficiently, that you are comfortable to ignore the issue.
It must be nice to love in a comfortable bubble like that.
Holy shit, what a dismissive take on the article. This exact reaction is part of the problem .
Who gives a shit about the accurate reporting of the number. How about the broader issue of a) sleep rape, proven in court, b) that rapists have published their exploits online, and C) that there is an audience for same.
Take your semantics and fuck off.
Apt username
My friend, I think you simply misunderstand the value of companies. Microsoft has a market cap of 2.7trillion. a wealth cap of 10m means that 270,000 people will be maxed at that cap. For one company. Who of that 270,000 runs the company?
Then extrapolate out to all listed and private companies. Your theory is incompatible with how companies operate.
NOW you're cooking with gas!!
Sounds good in theory. But it is inoperative in a capitalist society. Here's a thought exercise:
Management might have a salary of $5 million but stock worth 1 billion. Maybe you expect they divest their stock? Okay, who buys? Who has control of the company? Does it become a societal asset? Can't have a company run by a million-person committee.
Your wealth cap works where someone has liquidity over 100million. I suggest that few do as it's not a tax-advantaged strategy.
Huh, that's really interesting ( and makes sense ). Appreciate you taking the time to write it out.
Can you please expand on point 3? With reference only to anecdotes, I thought LLM summarised extremely well, albeit with certain hallucinations.