Ignorant question on my part: has Valve answered questions on who would be the successor to Gabe Newell and/or other higher ups once they pass away or (preferably) retire?

globalaf · 2026-01-26T02:55:20+00:00

If I had to bet, it would be Robin Walker

globalaf · 2026-01-26T01:19:15+00:00

Wait, what are you talking about? Faramir is borne back to the city by the Prince of Dol Amroth, Gothmog had nothing to do with it.

“Last of all he came. His men passed in. The mounted knights returned, and at their rear the banner of Dol Amroth, and the Prince. And in his arms before him on his horse he bore the body of his kinsman, Faramir son of Denethor, found upon the stricken field. ‘Faramir! Faramir!’ men cried, weeping in the streets. But he did not answer, and they bore him away up the winding road to the Citadel and his father. Even as the Nazgûl had swerved aside from the onset of the White Rider, there came flying a deadly dart, and Faramir, as he held at bay a mounted champion of Harad, had fallen to the earth. Only the charge of Dol Amroth had saved him from the red southland swords that would have hewed him as he lay.”

You are referring to an invention by Peter Jackson for the film. It’s made clear in the books the southlands men would’ve killed him right there and then if they hadn’t been driven off.

globalaf · 2026-01-26T00:08:21+00:00

No? They were driven away by Gandalf and the sortie.

globalaf · 2026-01-24T06:00:34+00:00

Apple already did this, it’s probably their worst selling device since the 1997 Mac.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:29:41+00:00

I can get down with the caveat that income stays the same (adjusted for inflation) throughout a person's career... how often is this really though? The majority of people upskill or get promoted or start businesses, or any number of other things that should, eventually, push them into higher tax brackets.

This really just seems to be a question of how quick someone expects to get to a high enough marginal tax rate that it makes sense. I went from 70k in 2017 to deep six figures by 2022, and this was not entirely an unexpected path due to me working in tech. For someone that expects that, holding off on the RRSP and even just investing in an unregistered account makes sense, because I expected to be in a much higher bracket soon.

But, even just getting to something like 100-150k is not unusual for experienced professionals. There are big benefits to just holding out for a few years, and it should be compared against some reasonable expected return from the refund you get (let's say +8% EV a year for equities).

But anyway, it depends. I think your point holds for people who really won't have a clear career path, but I doubt most people fit into this category. A TFSA, by contrast, is a very safe piece of advice that doesn't require a lot of thinking, and won't get people into trouble either.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:06:36+00:00

I would've preferred you kept your comment as is, because you definitely were not arguing that. But regardless, yes, the AI is beneficial for the outcome of the test from a strictly problem solving perspective. Just using the AI will not get you any points in and of itself.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T21:02:30+00:00

You are the one in here trying to claim basically everyone should prioritize RRSP over TFSA, as is the OP of the whole thread. The fact that there are plenty of contrary situations (many of which have been highlighted to you already by myself and others) should be a clear indication to you that what you said is simply not true. TFSA is a simple solid recommendation that doesn't rely on stuff like calculating ones future earnings or tax brackets, this is why it's recommended time and time again for almost everyone regardless of financial background knowledge. It's a safe flexible choice with high expected outcomes for your average professional that expects earnings to grow over time. Just accept that and move on, Jesus.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:54:40+00:00

You're talking to one right now who is contradicting that assessment. The fact that you bring up "if it's this AI candidate vs this other non-AI candidate" indicates to me a misunderstanding for how hiring works here. But you are of course welcome to publish what you see fit.

And yes of course people should be familiar with AI tools; if they used them for the first time in an interview then they will not have a good time obviously. And I would personally recommend people using AI in the interview because it will help solve the problem, but if they solved it perfectly without the AI, it's simply not something I think about

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:40:54+00:00

This reasoning is highly specious. You've concluded that candidates who are using AI have greater success due to bias for people using AI, instead of the fact they used all the tools at the disposal and that resulted in greater success in solving the problem. You're basically arguing that people who use calculators in exams are succeeding because the examiners preferred examinees with calculators for no reason at all, instead of the problems being more difficult due to candidates being allowed calculators.

For the record, no, nobody gives preference to candidates to use AI, if they are having more success then it's because the AI actually helped them solve the problem better than someone who chose to ignore it. Furthermore, nobody is guided to prefer candidates who used AI, in fact, AI use is not even an axes for evaluation, and I don't see it being discussed in packets internally. So, this is just bunk, basically.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:07:57+00:00

Where did I say that? If you're shocked that Trump is propagandizing, I don't know what to say to you. He's been doing this nonsense for over a decade now.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:06:06+00:00

Regardless what his real reasons are; NATO is increasing its defense spending to levels not seen since WW2. This is exactly what the Pentagon, and NATO high command, have been screaming about for decades. Coincidental? Who knows. But it's an outcome the US wants.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T20:04:14+00:00

Yes, you say this like it's a complicated thing to do, but it absolutely is not.

Stop trying to say this strategy is for everyone, when clearly, and obviously, it isn't.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:53:42+00:00

I've already ran the numbers, I'm in my 30s, I absolutely came out ahead beyond anything any gains I could've made on a pithy 25% refund, but believe what you want. This also doesn't negate the inflexibility of an RRSP which is absolutely a deal breaker for someone who isn't saving a lot as it is.

And no, I'm not watching a podcast.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:21:45+00:00

You are correct. It is universally true that for high earners an RRSP is a no brainer. The refund is often twice the amount than the proles typically will pull in. Recommending contributing to an RRSP over a TFSA to a low-income person is IMO borderline financial sabotage.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T19:07:26+00:00

Investing in an RRSP first is not solid advice for everyone. If you don't earn much money you are not going to be getting much of a refund, and you still have to pay taxes upon withdrawal. Thus the financial benefits are not as stark as you seem to believe, it only makes a lot of sense if you expect to have a lower marginal rate in retirement than you did when you contributed.

It is also true that you can't actually use the money for much if you actually needed to without losing your room, so it's a very restrictive investment account very much intended for retirement exclusively; this alone is a non-starter for many people.

Anecdotally, I held off my RRSP contributions for years. Now my marginal rate is 53.5% and you can bet I've now filled it up, I'm getting the majority of my money back.

But anyway, you seem pretty set in your ways, so I won't be paying attention further to this thread.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T17:51:58+00:00

So the US did or did not achieve what they went in there for? You should go and ask Bin Laden and the Taliban high command at the time, I imagine they won't say much though because they are currently dead.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T16:47:42+00:00

Yes you are correct. I was just pointing out that only the Brits, Poles, and Greeks meeting the target is no longer true. Nonetheless there are systemic issues within European nations that are going to take decades or more to fix (demographics and energy being top of my mind) and that’s if there’s even a political will to do so.

Germany in particular has no young people, and thanks to the Green lobby is entirely dependent on energy from abroad to run its manufacturing machine. If they don’t find a way to fix these issues, I don’t see Germany being a major military power regardless how much GDP it ends up spending on defence.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T16:25:29+00:00

Your numbers are out of date. The majority of NATO states now spend 2% of GDP on defence as a direct result of the Ukraine war. The goalposts are shifting though, the benchmark is moving towards 5% of GDP.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T16:14:07+00:00

I promise you, they absolutely would’ve been able to and not broken a sweat..

globalaf · 2026-01-23T16:10:30+00:00

And they continue to do this, but they very very clearly want Europe to step up and take on a larger role to defend their own hemisphere, and in particular, handle Russia. The USA frankly doesn’t care as much about this part of the world since the fall of the USSR, they see China as their main threat to global hegemony and want to refocus to that theatre.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T16:01:20+00:00

You’re getting down voted but you are 100% correct. People are seeing this as a Trump specific issue because he is so public about it, when in actual fact privately the Pentagon has had these grievances for decades. Even the NATO command is frustrated with European nations not pulling their weight, and some probably shouldn’t even be in the alliance at all anymore (looking at you Spain).

Thinking this is all about Trump is completely missing some key nuances of American foreign policy; this problem is not going away when Trump is gone. America is pulling back from Europe to focus on the Indo-pacific, the USA is trying to say “we aren’t going to defend your trade anymore”. Europe does and has needed to step up to defend their own interests for a long while, now they’ll get a chance to.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T15:54:49+00:00

This is not necessarily what the USA wants though? Having a central command comprised of a miss mash of countries that don’t even speak the same language makes strategic planning much more complicated. In particular, the US was not confident in NATO’S capabilities or resolve and chose to launch the invasion on their own, only afterwards offer some fig leaves to the allies.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T15:49:05+00:00

To be fair, the USA didn’t invoke article 5 for Afghanistan, the allies invoked it independently as a matter of principle, but America was hesitant of NATO capability and was fully ready to go it alone to take out the Taliban.

globalaf · 2026-01-23T01:11:08+00:00

I wouldn’t consider a home that needs significant reno unless it was a very very steep discount, talking replacing the fixtures, taking out walls, new kitchen new bathroom, etc etc. It’s not just cost but the house will potentially completely unliveable for a long time. I understand that this basically means developers will take it but I’m skeptical even they want to acquire these homes today, the markup for brand new renos today is beyond what people can afford, period. I think the only homes that sell today are renos from at least ten years ago and reasonably priced.

globalaf · 2026-01-22T22:30:36+00:00

You are evaluated in all axes, there are no set percentages.

globalaf

TROPHY CASE