I really don't get the weird attachment to having your generic lineage continue. I guess it's just as arbitrary as hoping that anything in particular will outlive you, but it's not going to do you in particular any good, and it seems to me there's less reason to think it'll help people as a whole than doing something productive with your money rather than spending it all in diapers, clothes, college, and so on.
boatswain
joined 2 years ago
Their headline, and the summary above, actually say 0.8%. so either they updated their headline or there was some kind of error when posting it here.
Ah gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks.
I don't know how relevant FDIC is to the 1%; it only covers 250k, and only in things like checking and savings accounts and CDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation
Most of the 1% wealth is probably tied up in things like stocks and real estate, or maybe they diversify all over the place.
Strands #264
“This is the place!”
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵🔵🔵
Connections
Puzzle #530
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟪🟪🟪🟪
True, good point!
Darwin awards are just for dying, though?
Trying to make the time to review all this SOC 2 evidence for our annual audit, while also getting pinged for tons of other issues all the time.
My understanding is that intention is not uncommonly litigated; I believe the question of "intent to deceive" is central to trademark law, for example. That's also what the the "degrees" of murder etc are about.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I do read an awful lot of contacts and talk to lawyers.
My point is that you're ascribing some kind of value to passing genes along and that seems super weird.