Unless they’re the sole recipient of a will (doesn’t seem very common), at least here those are almost always liquified and proceeds split according to the will. Doesn’t amount to much usually, though it might be different in countries that have very large and expensive cities.

Well, that really depends on the society. I don’t live in one that makes such assumptions. It feels a little bit entitled to assume something like that, but that could also just be cultural differences between developed and non-developed countries. The former have social security and safety nets, rendering an inheritance less important and much less prominent. Feels like the only inheritance worth even thinking about is if you have millions in excess of what you need for living, and in developed countries that is very much less prominent than in developing countries

Exactly my thoughts too. Life’s meant to be lived. Hoarding assets to save for an uncertain future is counterproductive even in terms of economy at large, if one’s inclined to think that way.

It creates expectations that don’t seem natural, and then leads to disappointments and bitterness when life does not go as planned, as it never will.

But then again, I get wanting to make things better for your children. But at least for me, it seems less prone to pure chance and circumstance if the efforts went into building a more sustainable, inclusive and supportive country to live in. And enjoy the ride while it lasts, since your pain and suffering will reflect on your children, want it or not. If things are tight and you get stressed from that, it’s always going to affect everyone around you, often negatively. If, instead, you could relieve that stress by not saving more than you need as a buffer here and now, or for something like a house (I.e not for some abstract future that might never come, for your children who might not live that far, but are here now, with you), that’s probably going to be much better for everyone. Smiles generate smiles and it’s not a zero-sum game. Life well lived is one with smiles, not one with fragile, ephemeral value of some sort stored away with sweat and blood.

But of course if there’s already too much to use realistically, why not do that then. But that’s an entirely different discussion altogether, if we ever should have something like that.

Edit: there’s a distinction I failed to emphasis enough, between a realistic and very worthwhile buffer of saved value for unexpected situations, which everyone should of course have, and saving for no reason at all, other than just having excess that isn’t needed for anything, to maybe if one’s very lucky pass on down the line.

Saving assets and value isn’t bad. But saving it for no practical reason other than inheritance, takes that value out of circulation and makes everyone in your economy worse off. If that’s important to you. But more importantly, it often means a life less well lived, and often one full of stress, tiredness and one with less time actually spend with your family and close ones in general. Which is enormously more negative in impact than any amount of money in excess, or lack thereof, could ever have when you finally die.

I never really considered an inheritance an option. Seems so off-worldly to me, even though I am by no means from a poor family, just lower middle class.

I think the entire concept of inheritance is something more prominent in developing countries like US or India, where there isn’t a well-established safety nets already in place by the government itself.

Of course we have inheritances too, I know a few who got something, but most of it gets taxed away upon receiving or vanishes covering the deceased’s debts, so I’ve never heard anyone I know get anything other than maybe a weekend vacation in the city next over or maybe a small chunk of student debt away.

Then again I’m not very well-off, and I do know there are the upper class families that have a long standing generational wealth passing over to the new generations. I guess it really depends on the circles one’s in.

But I still think it’s not as common here, at least I’ve never considered it to be normal, and I’ve known well people from upper middle class too.

Happy to elaborate, if I was unclear somewhere

My BMI is well on the obesity side, though I’m reasonably fit and more importantly, have built some muscle. I think last we checked it was around 35 or so, yet I do frequent 25km day off-road marches with ~25kg backpack just keep my body comfortable with the much less frequent, though much more enjoyable, longer hikes I try to fit in each year. Last I ran the (admittedly not all that useful) Cooper’s test, I got just past the 3km threshold.

All this, while technically being… *checks notes*… obese.

I’m 92kg and around 170cm, which I think gets close to 200lb and 5’7 in the land of the free units. Never felt better about my body and shape, although back in the day when I was doing my NCO school, I was in a much better shape. But about the same weight. Now I have some fluff on my dad belly. But I really find it sad that so many are scared of weight, when it’s the composition that matters.

I think speech like this is scaring people off of gaining a healthy amount of muscle, especially if they are longer in height than average. I’m short and I had to work a lot to get this weight and muscle. Someone tall wouldn’t have to work as much, and would not even be in as good a shape, but feel doubly worse because a lot of people just talk about all this in terms of weight.

All I’m saying is we should be critical of both using BMI in anything else than statistics where it’s at least helpful, and weight alone, which is even less helpful in any general sense. The kids will be too thin and frail in general, if they are scared of getting a healthy amount of strength, since that easily throws the scales off.

Yup, that seam/twist there on the foreground is almost a definitive giveaway

Edit: I mean I guess that especially a rich person could, for some reason, wear a weird ass scarf designed by someone who thinks in a very out-of-the-box way… but which is more likely?

Just saying, Steam controller is great and works amazingly still, made only better by the ongoing updates to steam input.

I’m not sure what else they’d need to do. Other than still produce it, I suppose 😅

Yeah, the two aren’t equivalent and the original has more conditions than the new one, so without context this just doesn’t make sense in this example.

A is “” only when B is also “”, otherwise we return f()

In the new one we simply say that regardless of what B is, we’ll just call f(), entirely skipping the case where B == “”.

Probably this specific condition checking was moved to the inner scope of f(), but this example does not tell us (who don’t know the context) that. Or maybe the check is redundant, but that also isn’t signaled in any way.

Or then maybe I’m just oblivious to the optimization, in which case I can see why the maintainer would take their time figuring that out. It’s not anything obvious based on that alone, at least to me, and I would say I have some experience in this field.

Edit: But yeah this is basically just semantics, I’m sure they gave apt description in the PR, so the context would be explained there and none of this really matters. I just like to ruminate about little things like this for some reason. Didn’t mean to imply they didn’t do a good PR, just that this specific example was either confusing or confused.

Or, at any rate, someone else rather than this specific one giving them either the fast or the slow decline. At least there’s a chance, then, that people vote for something other than that.

Regularly worse is still better than significantly worse.

Probably no need to worry. I like folk and especially nordic folk music (as in Wardruna, not Bob Dylan), which is very obviously something a neo-nazi would also probably like, if only for the superficial themes at play. I used to feel a bit afraid I might accidentally like and support someone I wouldn’t want to, but I’ve come to learn that these shops like midgard, they don’t have those kinds of “normal” releases usually, since they as a shop are often also banned on distributors’ side, so they couldn’t even get them if they wanted. At least eventually that’d kick in, as people report the shop to the bands or labels.

The music and merch these shops sell are… very obviously neo-nazi. I recommend you take a look at the shop just to get an idea, though obviously a content warning is necessary here.

This is all to say that unless the music you listen to is very obviously racist or neo-nazi or otherwise explicitly problematic, I wouldn’t worry.

Of course I might myself be wrong here, but I’ve tried to keep up and stay up to date as to which bands I like could be or turn out problematic.

None have so far, at least as far as I’m aware.

They’d have to be very explicit. I think you’d know for sure, if that was the case.

I listen to a lot of music like wardruna, I simply love the mysticism and the atmosphere of history, magic and rawness, but all of the ones I listen to are actively and publicly denouncing their music being used or approbiated by neo-nazis or other far-right movements or groups.

I think a lot of people would make a lot of noise, if one of the more popular ones would refuse to publicly denounce that. Or otherwise dodged these questions. Some, like Wardruna, are very actively and explicitly fighting those forces and are in a sense “reclaiming” some of the themes and fascinations that nazis and neo-nazis used to have, especially in norse mythology and history and their themes.

I am no longer anxious about being associated with wrong music. I think it’ll be very obvious if a band or a brand otherwise, takes a dodgy stance or especially very explicitly supports those dangerous ideals.

Which is to say, I wouldn’t worry, unless the lyrics, branding and themes are very explicit in their meaning.