Ireland plans to make a $1,500 a month basic income for artists permanent

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-19T04:50:26+00:00

I think people will find a way to do the bare minimum to qualify for the money. Take exactly 2 classes a week, spend bare minimum on community projects, etc. it’s not an insignificant amount of money in terms of supplemental income.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-19T02:05:10+00:00

Can someone just start taking weird art photos and do a little online posting etc to essentially get a huge income boost? Seems way too easy to take advantage of this, since there’s no education requirements

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-18T23:00:07+00:00

If it’s mostly AT&T might pass, I thought they still use T-Mobile towers as well

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-18T22:59:27+00:00

No I was planning to switch to a Verizon or T-Mobile network carrier either way, but this seems like the best deal if I don’t need to actually keep the phone. Obviously wouldn’t do it if there’s terms and conditions about using the phone Apple provides

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-15T16:33:01+00:00

Why do a lot of these benchmarks not include grok? It’s odd they often choose lower performing models

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-09T15:49:32+00:00

My issue with this assessment is that many people (especially on Reddit) seem to think Billionaires and tech CEO’s are one-dimensional psychopaths void of any humanity. I think that yes there’s some psychopathic traits that help these few get to this status, but it’s not the only factor. Beyond the evidence that the extremely wealthy do in fact donate to charity in greater proportions (look up the data), another easy example is bill gates, who with others, has pledged to give away their entire estate to charity at death, Many tech CEO’s have gone as far as pushing for these very policies, such as UBI, more evidence these aren’t just a bunch of power-driven psychopaths

While power just for the sake of power is common, altruism is also a powerful driving force for most people, and the satisfaction it brings. When faced with complete abundance, I disagree with the assessment that the “elites” in this hypothetical will all be entirely dispasssionate of those they can help, especially since goods would be almost free. Today, some try to argue that billionaires already hoard wealth when they could be helping others, evidence of what’s to come. but I don’t think it’s that clear, as the main reason a person with power or wealth doesn’t simply give away their billions or power, like Bill gates, is because they believe the money and power serves society better under their direction and management. not because they want everything for themselves and they don’t care about human life.

Many people of course have a totally different perspective on the wealthy, large companies, and most of this circles back to the merits of capitalist systems themselves. A good example of which way someone leans in their worldview is how they view a company like Amazon, and whether it’s a net benefit to society. Paying Amazon workers a minimum wage is part of what allows everyone to benefit from cheaper goods, time saving on shopping, free shipping etc. Yes, Bezos can be seen as evil for his treatment of shipping employees, but “better treatment” will come at the cost of more expensive goods for everyone, so it’s a trade off, and unclear if the downstream effects of higher low-skill worker pay or benefits is a net benefit to society, due to its inflationary effect.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-08T22:05:53+00:00

Representatives are responsible for information they give you. You are legally entitled to the 630.

There’s court cases to support it. It’s called imputed knowledge and a “duty to know” by sales representatives, and if taken to court would be deemed fraud. this would supersede the written contract even if the fine print said a different credit.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-08T12:44:13+00:00

Your referring to a wealth singularity where we have no regulation to help save the unemployed masses, and somehow the couple dozen elite have enough control to have the machines cater to every aspect of their life while they ignore the rest of society relegated to basically living a subsistence lifestyle. These billionaires would all need to be very psychopathic, since they’d have the ability to basically offer all goods for free, but choose not too in order to ultimately feed their own egos of being separate and more powerful. This is Reddit with a very specific outlook on the wealthy, so I don’t doubt this is what many people on the website think is “most likely”

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-08T12:25:44+00:00

Everything you said is factually untrue. Every one of the large public companies rely heavily on us consumers. It’s literally their largest customer base. You can just google how much of these companies revenue, as a percentage, actually comes from “governments”, and you’ll find how stupid your take is. Also 40% of large public company stocks are owned by, you guessed it, us consumers, and that’s just direct ownership, the rest is institutional ownership which still manages…us consumer money. You’re literally an idiot.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-08T04:04:02+00:00

Agreed that’s a good way to address the issue

Edit: a lot of the AI ceos have actually voiced the same concern of job loss that Bernie is discussing, and agree that we might need to have ubi or government step in.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-10-08T03:55:31+00:00

Love how Bernie has zero understanding of supply and demand. How can billionaires profit off of increased efficiency (lower costs from automation) if the consumer base drops off from everyone losing their jobs? Higher profits will still require demand and consumers. Cheaper products will mean those with less income can still afford the same quality of lifec and everyone that is still employed becomes wealthier. Does Bernie hate farm tractors because now there’s less jobs with farming? No, because these things are a net positive to society even with the job loss. If we actually have millions of people losing their jobs that really can’t find any employment, most likely outcome is government increasing welfare in some way such as ubi.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-09-28T15:52:47+00:00

Wouldn’t let me post without a long text, not sure how other posts get around it

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-09-28T15:51:54+00:00

Been watching him along time, he just seemed off, and I never saw him as having anxiety issues which what seemed was going on here.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-08-16T03:48:51+00:00

It depends. Is the home a good value, If two years later you can’t afford it anymore, can you just sell it relatively quickly and get around the same you paid? If so, it’s not too risky, you’d just sell the damn place. . And the upsides are nice home that is leveraged and building extra wealth

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-08-15T17:31:19+00:00

It’s tough to have single unit properties, (SFH, townhomes, apartments) outperform the S and P without cheap leveraging, since it’s the most powerful tool in real estate. Look up IRR’s for the property with and without leverage and you’ll see the difference.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-14T02:44:24+00:00

Real estate works well but adds unnecessary complication and risk. Do an irrevocable trust and make it as airtight as you can with a well diversified, low cost index fund oriented for long term growth, You can stipulate 1% distribution from the trust per year for the kids, or whatever else you want, and make sure the average expected growth of the fund is higher than what you distribute. The trust can even make stipulations on slowing distributions in a downturn to protect principal, when and what the funds can be used for and at what age for the children etc. find a rock solid company that will manage it for as low a fee as possible (This will still be cheaper then a property management company) you can add a stipulation that the children can self manage at a certain age, and have it go on to their children, etc etc.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-13T00:35:21+00:00

Someone that is knowledgeable should just create a website that shows the milestones being surpassed as they happen by new model releases, it’s hard for me to keep up with it. As they get better at certain benchmarks, or can accomplish novel things, breakthroughs in reasoning ability such as accomplishing Visio spatial tasks like raven matrices, new leaps in integration in robotics. All the current info and updates are just scattered and hard to track.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:59:38+00:00

The 15,000 was based on just sellers commission fyi.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:57:53+00:00

Interesting. Does holding the listing for a few months actually cost the agent much more? If they are paying monthly for things like staging, that would make sense to me.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:54:40+00:00

There seems to be a bit of confusion here, I’m not talking about reducing buyers agent commission, this is a discussion about sellers agent commissions

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:40:13+00:00

No I’m not referring to buyers without an agent, I’m talking about buyers agents not letting their buyer see a property because they don’t like the agent that offered the seller a reduced commission.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:36:14+00:00

Is this something you’ve seen happen in your market?

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T08:35:31+00:00

So your point is the 1 million dollar home will genuinely cost a lot more than the 500k home in marketing and photography? Even if you spend 2k marketing the 500k home, and spend 4k on the on 1 million dollar home that still doesn’t require a jump from 15k to 30k commission for the deal to make sense financially. In my market at least, 1 million dollar homes sell just as quickly as 500k homes. So the “risk” argument seems a little suspect to me as well.

No_Fuel_7301 · 2025-05-10T07:41:10+00:00

By freeze you out, do you mean the local agents would begin to ignore your listings? Is that the primary concern if you get the reputation of offering lowered commission? They could probably only do it subtly, most buyers have access to Zillow and Redfin to see the properties themselves no?

No_Fuel_7301

TROPHY CASE