129 karma · joined September 29, 2022
At least that is good, as immigration takes a lot of what little available housing that is available.
It's the same in the USA. Housing prices are shooting up on everything and 40 million Mexicans - not counting all the immigrants from other countries - that have moved here. Don't tell me that has zero effect on the housing market here in the USA. Probably more than all other causes combined.
It's disgusting.
I guess at least the large sites, anyways.
What is the new imgur that will take imgur's place? Anyone know if there's something new?
The thing is that you have to put in more effort than when younger.
Proximity and constant contact is easy when you are young.
One of the things that made it easier in elementary/jr high/high school and/or university is that you were in classes every day or every other day with the same person for months. You see them on campus or buildings as you are walking around. Going to school is mandatory, so you will see the same people every day.
It's easy.
As an adult, it is not the same. But that is why office romances are so common. You are forced to see the same people every day. But there are other places. Some go to church for social contact, not necessarily worship. Or maybe worship is a 2 or 3 and social is 9 out of 10 in importance.
One solution is to go to groups with weekly meetings. Monthly is not frequent enough. I met a lot of cool people in a hiking group and a technical groups that I went to.
If you start your own hiking/walking group and get 10 or 20 people to attend, you will have a lot of friends, especially if you are the group leader. Leaders always get the attention of everyone - it's built into our DNA. You are the one who puts in the effort, gets people together, plans where you go to walk. You have to "market" the group. You also have to plan extracurricular activities - if you have a hiking group, every few months you can have a party at your house for your group, or BBQ or whatever.
Join weekly groups, or create a weekly group. That's the best way. If you just don't want to put in the effort, well, what can I say. You won't get together frequently enough to form bonds. It really just isn't possible, or maybe just not likely anyways. You want to increase probabilities, you need to meet with people weekly. I think creating the group is best.
---------------------------------------------
Here are some ways if you want to createyour own group to find and attract members:
Create a Facebook group or page and invite your friends to join and share it with their network.
Use other social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, or LinkedIn to promote your group and reach a wider audience.
Create a website or a landing page where people can learn more about your group and sign up to join.
Post flyers or posters in public spaces such as coffee shops, libraries, or community centers.
Attend local events and hand out flyers to people who might be interested.
Use word of mouth and tell your friends, family, and colleagues about your group and ask them to spread the word.
Ask local related businesses if you can post flyers or business cards in their establishment. Camping stores for hiking, computer stores for tech groups, etc.
Use online community platforms such as Meetup, Eventbrite, or Facebook Events to create and promote your group.
Create a group on LinkedIn and invite people in your industry to join.
Use Reddit to post about your group in relevant subreddits.
Reach out to local organizations or clubs and ask if they would be interested in collaborating with your group.
Use Craigslist to post about your group in the community section.
Attend networking events and conferences to meet new people and promote your group.
Create a hashtag for your group and use it on social media to increase visibility.
Use paid advertising on social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram to reach a wider audience.
Partner with local newspapers or radio stations to advertise your group.
Use email marketing to reach out to people who might be interested in joining.
Attend local festivals or events and hand out flyers or business cards.
Use Google AdWords to target people searching for keywords related to your group.
Create a YouTube channel and post videos about your group to promote it.
Use influencer marketing by partnering with people who have a large following in your niche.
Attend relevant industry events and promote your group to the attendees.
Partner with local schools or universities to reach out to students who might be interested in joining.
Partner with churches and other types of places where people meet regularly.
Host a launch event or a meetup to introduce your group to the community and attract new members.
You can go look at other company's websites to get ideas from their blog posts. then you must reword things in your own words and thoughts, maybe take out some stuff of theirs if you don't agree, and add your own content that they don't have and you think is needed. If you go onto 20 websites and read their content on a specific topic, you pretty much will learn everything there is to know unless it is hyper-technical, like some PhD level mathematics or physics, then just give up if you want to write content like that. That is unreasonable.
You can go onto reddit subdomain that is in the area of your interest and read through the comments. If someone there asks a question you know the answer to, that can be a great starting point for a blog entry. I tried to think of a random category and the first thing that popped into my head was "roses." I don't know anything about them but went to that subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Roses/
I started scrolling and came across "Roses wilting after planting" and the description of what is happening: "So I did everything you’re supposed to do with planting rose trees I dug enough space added enough soil, put some rose plant food. Is there anything to help combat the shock and any tips would be welcome. I am in Phoenix Arizona so climate is sunny now thanks in advance guys can post pictures if needed"
If you are a rose aficienado and can answer this question, that is a topic right there. If you do NOT know about the topoic, you can search through other rose websites and see if there are answers and then just put together an answer. However, you must make sure that the sites you get the info from are completely and 100% accurate and from reputable sources. Finding reputable websites can take a lot longer than writing the article.
Of course, you must have a great command of the English language. You have to create something readable. Entertaining, not dry. Easy to read, not cryptic. Organized, not disorganized.
If you can't do this yourself and are horrible at grammar, at least correct the obvious mistakes in Word - they underline the mispelingz and all that.
You can maybe also get an editor from fiverr. Even professional writers use editors to catch their mistakes. It's difficult to see your own mistakes.
Also, fucking chatgpt, that fucking shit is awesome. You just need to be able to double-check the shit out of it, as it sure as shit does not get everything right. So you need some expertise to double-check chatgpt.
At least for the last w20 years I've been talking with them, owners cannot find employees. It's the biggest complaint that I hear.
I talk to construction company owners all the time and journeymen make $100,000+ per year. Not at all the companies, not the shitty owners, but if you look, you will find that money.
This is way better than an average university education in all but a few majors like computer science.
Not only that, but as you apprentice and learn the trade, you get paid, unlike university where you pay.
When I went to university, you could get any degree, it didn't matter, because tuition was $600 per year. Get an English degree or art degree. You could pay your tuition and books and fees working a summer job.
Now, if you go to university, anything other than a computer science degree is a waste of money and time, more or less. Most of the STEM field majors suck - you don't get squat for a biology degree or chemistry degree, or so I hear. Only computer science is a sure thing. Oh, there might be a few weird degrees you can make massive money in, like petrochemical engineering or whatever, but jobs are far and few between, and there's no a massive market for those type of degree, unlike computer science.
80% of x is caused by 20% of y.
.
80% of the sales come from 20% of the salespeople.
80% of the music played comes from 20% of the composers.
80% of the crime is commited by 20% of the people.
.
And not only that, out of those 20%, the 80/20 law still applies. of the 20% of the people who commit crimes, 80% of those crimes are commited by 20% of the people. And of those 20%, 80% of those are caused by 20% of them.
Same with wealth, music, whatever.
That's why, no matter what, most of the wealth will always be owned by a very small number of people. You can take all the money away from the wealthiest people, and in 50 years, the top 20% will own 80% of the wealth again. It will be a different 20%, but still, 20% will own 80% the wealth again.
It's also if you have a company with employees, 20% of the employees do 80% of the work. So you do NOT want to lose those 20% of the employees who do most of the work.
It's like saying that people can't fly. Maybe we cannot do it with wings, but we do it nonetheless.
But we have only started this age of more and more knowledge over the last 100-150 years, and it is logarithmic and the curve is getting steeper and steeper with each year. Who knows what will be possible in another 150 years? As far as I'm concerned, I'm 100% convinced that by 2050, you'll be able to put your brain on a chip and we will use robots and inhabit robot bodies to travel around, just download our program into the robot's body.
What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess.
One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do.
How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
I just read an article saying that the costs would be prohibative to upgrade office highrises into apartments.
Here is one that I just googled:
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2022/04/13/offi...
I read another article about it being the same thing in Los Angeles - cost prohibative.
What uses would those be?
He told me just to eat well-rounded healthy meals, not to be a glutton, and walk for an hour a day.
There's too much splitting the hairs these days.
"Follow the crowd" people say: "I heard that hopping on one leg, eating a egg through the nose by sucking it in, and belching loudly in church is the best way to be healthy. This week. Next week it's going to be eating 45 tiny meals a day, somersault 5 times, click your heels three times and say "There's no place like Alpha Centauri.""
That's ok, isn't it?
Why is the Fed trying to move the banking sectors to consolidate banking for the last 50 years?
The President of the United States nominates the members of the board of directors. The US Senate confirms those choices.
No two governors may come from the same Fed District. They are 14 year terms and staggered. No board member can be re-appointed.
You would have to have the entire US presidents from Nixon to Biden in on it. All 100 Senators (or the majority) would have to be in on it. Every Fed governor would have to be in on it. All the people around those decisions - POTUS staff, Senators' staff, everyone working at the Fed - all working in unison and no one talking for 50 years - no books written that they want to put all small banks out of the way. It's easy to say "The Fed" but the current members are Jerome Powell, Michael Barr, Michelle Bowman, Lisa Cook, Philip Jefferson, and Christopher Waller. What can you tell me about each of them? Why would they be in lockstep? Have they all been told that they would be assassinated by the CIA if they didn't follow orders from some shadowy group? Who exactly is this shadowy group that will assassinate them. Please name names instead of saying "shadowy group." I only use this term because I don't know what their names are and if they have an actual group name.
And most importantly, who and why would someone want to have us be the next Argentina? Why does - not the fed - but Jerome Powell, Michael Barr, Michelle Bowman, Lisa Cook, Philip Jefferson, and Christopher Waller want to destroy the USA? Why does every single president and every single Senator every single Fed Member, and all of their staffs, for the last 50 years, want to destroy the USA? I'd love to know this. If you could list every single member of Senate and all the Fed Board members, by name (Senators and Fed board members and their staffs), and tell me why each and every single one of them want the destruction the USA, I'd love to hear it. I also assume since the USA is destroyed, it would also take out Western Europe and most countries around the world - like, almost all of them.
"sociologists use to legitimize their expertise and colonize other fields of inquiry that were traditionally the domains of philosophers and scientists. The whole thing is just repackaged Marxist analysis of everything as a social relation."
it's always 5pm somewhere for someone.
I don't know about you, but I kinda am getting their entire worldview from that short statement. What else am I supposed to ask? If they like piña coladas and getting caught in the rain? If they're not into yoga, or if they have half a brain? If they like making love at midnight In the dunes on the cape?
I'll leave it to you to go to their house some some dark and stormy night and strip nude, lie down on their table, and put a cleaver across your chest, waiting to hear his story about his other thoughts.
I'm not trying to caricature. I'm just saying that you can go hang out with a serial murderers. I admit that you are a better person than I am because you are ready to hang out with serial murderers and I'm not. I'll judge the serial killer on just the one statement, thank you very much.
Not a strawman, I don't think. More like reducto ad absurdum. But in whatever case, I think what I wrote was kinda humorous, too, so I'll go with humor as an additional failsafe.
Autocratic dictatorships are the baddies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw
For example, China just went from a "sort of" almost democracy to full on autocratic dictorship the minute the law was passed that Xi Jinping is now life dictator. Same with Putin and Russia.
I don't feel like I have to defend anything I wrote above - it's pretty self-evident.
Of course that is the case. That is almost always the case. Too much money means people have more money to buy physical stuff, and there is always a shortage of stuff, supply chain or not. Even if all the computer chips and everything was manufactured in the USA for cars, there would still be a shortage of cars.
The physical supply shortage is caused by too much money in the system, not by supply chains or anything else.
If people didn't have as much money, then there would not be as much demand for physical supplies, and everything would adjust. "Sorry, I don't have money to buy a car." That means one less car is needed for total inventory. It adds up when 1 million people don't buy cars that would have if they had the money.
But there is so much money supply that people are bidding up the price of goods. The homeless are not contributing to the physical supply shortage, because they have no money. More money = more demand.
Read about any crash and you will see the same exact situation. Read about the Spanish Price Revolution - the Spanish hauled so much gold and silver in from the New World that it massively increased money supply, and the value of gold and silver went way down. Prices then go up relative to the money. Not only did Spain suffer, but it spread across Western Europe. Too many people with too much money chased too few goods.
It's not really even about Credit Suisse. It's about worldwide C-suite compensation. It is disgusting.
I did just look at comparisons between USA CEOs to European and Japanese, and America is a horror show compared to them. This is CEOs so I'm not sure how the entire C-suite or top executives would fare against the same in America - maybe European companies spread it out more evenly to top-level executives.
https://www.wtwco.com/en-US/Insights/2020/12/ceo-pay-landsca...
But if the $3.2 billion per year in bonuses still went to the top 20 people, it is essentially the same, at least to me.
But I do know the USA better, so I will comment to that even though Credit Suisse is Euro. For example, Tim Cook of Apple made $100 million in 2021, not including $754 million in stock shares. Cook "voluntarily" took a "cut" in compensation to $50 million per year this year. Oh, thanks, Tim. But is Tim Cook going to quit and do nothing if he was paid $5 million all along? Yeah, maybe now he would, given that he is a billionaire, but if from the start, no he would not quit, nor stop working as hard. People are motivated by more than money. They will take it, of course, who wouldn't?
Nobody, but nobody, needs that much money. How many pairs of shoes and pants does one need? And I use shoes and pants metaphorically. How much shit does one need?
And partly, or mostly, it is driven by boards of directors, who make $300K or $400K or whatever it is per year by going to 4 meetings per year. Not bad job, if you can get it. Just looked it up - Harvard Law School report says it is $290K for large cap, $217K for medium cap, and $164K for small. These board of directors are always high executive levels and KNOW if they as a group across the USA vote the average CEO and C-suite higher compensation, they will eventually get it too, so it is a conflict of interest that screw over the shareholders, and all other workers who are down the chain.
In the 1960s, CEO compensation was 60 times the average worker, or 6,000%. Not bad. Now it is 350 times the average worker, or 35,000% more.
From the beginning of income tax, for most of USA history, the tax rate was 70-90% on the top tax bracket. It came down to 50% when Reagan was elected in 1980, and then down to about 35% in 1986 and stayed there until present. Guess when the inequalities between the richest 10% and the other 90% started occuring...you guessed it, in 1986. you get a 35-55% tax break, you tend to make more money, kinda sorta.
As a matter of fact, the only time that the income tax level went down to the richest tax bracket was in the late 1920s....and then the market collapse happened and the Great Depression happened...correlation, or causation...I vote causation. And the exact same scenario is playing out now. Unmitigated greed is happening.
And what happened is that when the wealthy hit the top tax bracket, there was no reason to earn more. Their salary was capped, in essense. And that is why CEO compensation was only 6000% more than the average worker.
People make the bogus argument that the best won't then work. That's totally wrong, as the best don't work for compensation. They work for competition. And what else are they going to do if tax is at 70-90%? Sit around and do nothing? They still have to send kids to college and pay mortgages. And everyone else is subject to the same restrictions. And when we had the higher top tax bracket, that is when "normal" people had lower tuitions paid for by the public, hospital costs were less, etc. And I've read all the other "reasons" for what others say is the reason for price raises in everything, but I don't buy them.
Why should even a small business owner make $5 million a year while providing bronze health insurance, with super high deductables to his or her employees, when maybe if the owner could take $5 million and get everyone gold level health care?
There's a LOT more I could say but this is enough. I don't have time to write more.
But, to sum up, the CEO and entire executive class makes too much money and it needs to be reined in.
Sorry I wrote so much. It's a topic that causes steam to rise from my skull. :P
A friend of mine was going to graduate, and had one required class that she had to take. She had dropped it twice before because she said it was too difficult for her. If she didn't pass, she couldn't take the class again, or maybe for a year, not sure exactly.
Well, at the start of the semester at the first mid-term, she failed the first one. At that point, I decided to step in. I made her read every single chapter, completely, and understand most of it, before going to class, where the teacher went over everything and she could ask the one or two very incisive and important questions that she honestly didn't understand in the book.
I also "made" her do an extra credit paper (meaning I really just put the screws to her to do it, no mercy. For her own good - ie not graduating and failing out with one semester to go.)
As you might expect, she got perfect scores on her next two mid-term tests, and her report she also had an A+.
Reading to understand and working hard at it, you will understand. And reading it before each class, in order to ask the one or two or four honest questions that you have to fill in the honest few things you just can't understand.
And actually, with the internet, for almost all things, you can look up multiple sources on the topic and read them all - because each author has a different perspective and when you see the concept from many different perspectives, you really do understand deeply.
I got pretty much all C's, but then started doing this and then got all A's. Plus I leared memory mnemonics - Tony Buzon - for perfect memory. Learning mnemonics required a lot of work, but so worth it I would make it a required topic to teach starting in 1st grade, and every grade after that. Just like everyone should be required to take probability and statistics classes starting in 7th grade to 12th grade. Just those two.
Money supply went up, up, up, therefore inflation went up, up, up.
Now bonds are paying 5%.
SVB needs to sell its 1% bonds because they have to pay their actual depositors cash for payroll or whatever.
SVB goes to sell 1% bonds, which have been fine for forever.
Since new bonds pay 5%, SVB cannot sell their 1% bond because who in their right fucking mind would pay for a 1% bond when you can get a 5%.
How does SVB sell them? It cannot.
And now, the government is going to have to print even MORE money to rescue the bank depositors, throwing even MORE supply of money into our system, increasing inflation by even MORE. We are in a vicious death spiral, boys.
Normally, to my understanding, you have a certain % of deposits in different instruments. For example, maybe 30% in bonds.
It is very well known that if interest rates go up, value of bonds goes down. No surprise.
So what you do is hedge your bet. You put 30% into a financial instrument that goes UP when inflation goes up. So while one goes down, the other goes up, and you end with a net zero. Maybe $500 billion more, or $500 million less, but at least you don't get your ass handed to you. Like SVB did because they had like 70% in bonds and fucked themselves.
SVB lost $160 billion in 24 hours.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/svb-collap...
"Many of Silicon Valley Bank's investments featured treasuries, or government debt, which have historically been viewed as safe assets."
"Easy money policies coupled with pandemic-induced supply chain snares then led to inflation, according to many economists. As a result, the Federal Reserve began jacking up interest rates, which eroded the value of many of Silicon Valley Bank's assets."
"This is because higher rates meant that new bonds and treasuries earned more for investors than older ones. As a result, the older assets that Silicon Valley Bank stockpiled became less desirable and therefore shed value."
Same exact thing happened at Signature Bank.
It is NOT limited to SVB or Signature Bank.
"Banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized potential losses by the end of last year, according to the FDIC." For the same reason.
It's NOT a run, it is that value has been catastrophically been erased at banks. banks cannot pay their depositors. Even if there is no run, banks won't be able to give depositors money for rent, for mortgages, for payroll, for utilities. You get the message.
At some point, new loans cannot cover massive losses on the downside. If you lose 95% of the value of treasury bonds, a 5% loan is not going to do it to it.
Also, the banks won't even have money to give people loans, even if they wanted to. They can't even give current depositors money for payroll kind of thing.
We all need some luck here and how we can pull out of the nosedive that our jet airplane is in. Hope you are all puckered up in the sphincters.
Also, as I wrote, the risk manager went away, so there was no one to balance the risk. Nobody to say "No" we only can invest 30% into bonds and 30% into real property that goes up if inflation goes up, for example, so you get a wash. I don't know if it is 30%, I think I read that somewhere, but it doesn't really matter, that is the gist of it. Balancing different risks against each other to minimize risk and staying smooth and steady with assets.
When people come together into larger and larger communities, then more specialization can take place over longer periods of time.
This is if you have a stable situation, of course.
Additionally, writing and schools are critical, so knowledge can be passed down systematically. Not randomly by "tribe elders."
And the schools should be fairly open, meaning being able to be open about what they say and teach. To be able to push boundries.
Ancient Athens had writing, they had schools. They passed down architecture and philosophy in regular schools. If you are in hunter/gatherer mode, nobody really is a schoolteacher. The smartest hunter/gatherer, even if he or she was legit Einstein smart, is going to be out hunting for rabbits or deers or planting rice. You must have "extra." Extra population that supports scholars. That's why in medieval times, the Catholic Church was the keeper of scholarship. They had a lot of priest for the laypeople, but they had money to support a lot of people who hung out and did intellectual work. And, those who WERE Einstein smart joined the Catholic Church, because they figured out where they should go with their talents, just like a super smart student today knows to apply to MIT or Harvard or Princeton, etc.
Once you have the modern type university (as opposed to one or two subjects like law and religion, for example), then it all starts to snowball. Technology starts to snowball. This is one of the reasons why the Western world surpassed all others. It started in ancient Greece, and continued. England created the first modern universities at Oxford and Cambridge. Some claim it was University of Al Quaraouiyine, Morocco, but it was not a modern style university in the subject offered.
This is why England dominated the world. It passed on knowledge from generation to generation until it was absolutely the top. England's geography of being an island and cut off from mainland Europe also helped a lot.
"Third world countries", meaning hunter/gatherer, tribal, herdsman cultures, just don't have the critical mass. They simply do not have the numbers of people to make it.
The USA is the 4th most populated nation on earth. With this great population, if one out of a million is a tippy-tippy top person in some area of study, then there are going to be 330 in each area of the USA, since we have 330 million population. In every endeavor.
On the other hand, if you are in a country that has 2 million people, your odds of having that one in a million person are 3 in every area of endeavor/industry. 330 vs 3 is a big difference when you are talking about near-einstein level.
Except in a very populous country, these exceptional people will find their way to other exceptional people (usually via universities), but those in "3rd world" countries who are 1 out of a million might be stuck doing subsistence farming or shit like that. And even IF one of those 1 out of a million in Sudan, let's say, were to somehow find their way out, they would move to England or USA or Germany or France, and not stay in their poverty country. And, those countries would GLADLY give them citizenship if university was to line up behind a super skilled person.
.
Culture is important. Population density is important. Inculcation of education is important (which is part of culture, I guess.). If a culture spurns education, they will never self-actualize.
People talk about islam and how they "saved" all the knowledge, and that's all great and stuff, but what have they done for us lately? The reality is that the super religious anti-education conservative elements of islam took over and fucked over the learned islamic peoples, and the conservatives of islam destroyed the smart part of islam. The same that is happening in the USA right now.
So to answer your question directly, their world countries did not "become" how they are. They are exactly like they were 10,000 or 50,000 years ago.
In order to change, you have to change. If someone is conservative and does not like change, then they will want to be like it was 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. There are many, many people today who don't thing viruses or germs are a thing, for example. There are many who still believe in "gods"...like, 96% of the world believe that gods are real.
Meanwhile, the most educated do not go for that. You look at those with science degrees and only 50% believe in a god. Look at the NAS, Natural Acadamy of Science her in the USA where only top scientists are admitted, only 4% accept that a god exists.
So it's like that. Culture. Education. Knowledge. Population. Wealth. Etc.
It is a web of interconnected stuff that takes a long time to put together. England started Oxford in in 1200, and it took 800 years to make it to the peak of their Empire. Their empire fell apart because of the spread of knowledge to other parts of the world. Knowledge. Nothing else. Not war. Not WwI or WWII. Knowledge. Education.
This is much worse, in my opinion.
At least the loans were backed by real property in 2008. Homes that will have value and in fact have came back way, way more valuable than the bottom of that crash.
What we have now is a crash in financial instruments themselves.
It's about supply and demand. The USA has been printing up dollars like crazy since the beginning of the Covid pandemic. Simple supply and demand. More money created, less value money is worth.
History is littered with governments printing too much money, , and their entire civilization comes down.
Even Rome, mighty Rome, was brought down by printing up too much money. Other shit, too, but mainly printing too much money. They don't tell you this, but there ya go.
.
Will we pull out? Hope so. Just like in 2008 - we managed to pull out of it.
But 9 lives, folks. We're using them up.
I used to print a LOT. A whole lot. So I would use up the drum life after 2 or 3 years. The $120 one - HL-L2305W - is the one I always bought. They had different model numbers over time, but that is the one. Except when I used to buy them a lot, they would always come on sale at some point or another and I could pick it up for $100.
High density toner cartridge is $58 for 2600 pages. Maybe there's remanufactured/refilled toner, but I don't know about that. But you will see that the drum is good for 12,000 pages. So you can only use 5 toner cartridges before your drum gets blasted out. And to replace that, it costs $93. So at that point, I'd always buy another printer, as the new printer is only a little bit more, plus you get any new upgrades. And by upgrades, when I first started using them, I first started buying them when they printed out 3 pages per minute, which was still way better than dot matrix printers. So I'd buy a new one when the drum died and upgrade to 8 ppm, then 15 ppm. It seems to have stalled out at 25-30 ppm, for a long time now. I guess it is just the mechanical nature of the beast, where it costs a lot more to increase the ppm rate.
I've been through about 5 of the printers. Always worked great. Best value. Not anymore, though. I don't have a laser printer now, don't need one.
Plus I learned tricks at the time.
And I know 99% of people will never get close to printing that much, but I'm just saying that I put those printers through their paces and never had a problem.
There is an article on how Korean women are sick and tired of men.
I write basically that men should also do the same thing regarding women.
And get hit with the "incel" word.
I must admit, I honestly don't understand why it's ok for women to say that they want to live without men, but not the same for saying men not to live with women.
Can someone explain this to me? I thought it was pretty fair and equal, didn't mean any offense. I sure wassn't meaning any horrible things by it. I thought it was very honest comment that I wrote.