Exactly. We all clicked on it, didn’t we?

I’m with you. Couldn’t have scripted this season better. Anything else from now on is a bonus.

No but he’s a back-up so he is dealable.

Just for the laugh checked to see what public transport options there are. One bus departing from downtown. Not in a dedicated lane. Well, there’s your first problem.

I’d love to know what kind of odds you could have gotten for that at the beginning of the season? Any pundit suggesting it might happen after week 2 would have been fired (and maybe sent for a psych eval). Bears were 0-2 and the Pats were 1-1 and had lost to the raiders. Mad.

Wondered how much of this was due to low incidence overall in that age group but it looks like a real decrease.

I just realized from this post that I might be mistaken for an AI sometimes. smh

But of course, to realize that profit, he would have to sell some bitcoin which he absolutely never will do because it's almost sacred to him.

It's not fraud or money-laundering in any traditional sense. It is just someone who truly believes that he is going to be a trillionaire because of these bitcoin holdings once the price goes to a million. TBF, he hasn't been entirely wrong - he was buying at <10k and has made a huge profit

Michael Saylor is a true believer of the worst kind. He just keeps buying bitcoin. Because the value of the underlying asset was going up, he could take loans against it to buy new bitcoin which of course he did which in and of itself drove up the price. It's basically a ponzi scheme

Never understood this business model. There is no income generated by these tokens. It is entirely dependent on the price going up. Basically a ponzi scheme being shored up by loans which eventually have to be repaid by selling the underlying asset.

Not to mention the psychological cost of staying at home for someone who has a career and an education and just doesn't want to do it and doesn't feel fulfilled. I have seen it myself in people who made that choice and have a lot of regrets. It is really really lonely being home with the kids.

The opportunity cost in forcing women who might otherwise have productive careers to stay at home to take care of their kids is another thing lost here. Yes you may have to pay an exorbitant amount for childcare for a few years but in the end, the damage to future earnings for may be women higher

"projected" approval rate whatever that means.

There is a graphic inset in this that shows individual state data. But it’s not clear that this is due to actual data or the swings as you say. For some states I suspect it is individual because they do sample a lot of people.