Do you think sitting on your arse claiming there’s nothing to be done is more or less demoralising than singing in the streets with like minded people?

Maybe you work different than most humans, but I think the answer to that is pretty obvious for the rest of us.

I can’t help comparing it (unfavourably) to baldurs gate 1. The story just didn’t hook me the same way.

I haven’t played a lot of souls, but elden ring death (both of non-boss enemies and protagonist) is super toothless. What made it more relevant in previous games?

Omg yes. It was not just a corridor. It was a send up of every game corridor game that I had played to that point. Taking a design limitation and making it a compelling plot twist was exactly what made bioshock awesome. One of my top 5 gaming moments of all time.

For me grind is when the gameplay loop is motivated by reward not exploration and plays out the same every time.

Good gameplay can come from a feeling of freshness because there are lots of possibilities, because rng or because player options (say, slay the spire), or from lots of genuinely novel content (say, elden ring).

It doesn’t feel like a balancing act at all. I just want more of the latter and less of the former, but maybe some people really do play for repetition?

It had a single player campaign too! Deck builder pvp gets too sweaty for me, but I really like deck builder RPGs.

Couldn’t find a good primary source to dig into it. But from Ipsos:

“I believe the preference for physical discs amongst next gen gamers reflects the potential value they derive from the pre-owned market,” commented Ipsos director Ian Bramley to MCV, “which is holding up the preference for physical - this is unlike the music and film markets.”

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/64-percent-prefer-physical-media-to-digital-distribution

I’m sure there’s a lot of generational and market segment differences. I never really understood “collecting” games. But I guess people do that in digital too with their huge steam sale backlogs!

I’m sure not many people care about physical vs digital per se. It’s the arbitrary locks by servers, digital storefront, DRM etc. So that when you pay your money you have no idea what you are getting and what your rights are. Physical game media was a simpler time from that perspective (play in perpetuity, don’t redistribute, cool cool that seems like a fair trade) and resulted in better pricing and experience for consumers.

I’d accept “move on” if the argument was just “muh pretty box” (god knows there are plenty of ways to buy pretty boxes of vidya IP) but consumer rights are surely worth fighting for, or we get needlessly bled for ever more dollars.

Agreed, de facto, budget cuts have been and would be racist.

Fiscal conservatism actually does mean something though. Like you could imagine a left leaning fiscally conservative government that maintained a balanced budget by raising taxes on corps and the wealthy. That would be basically fine (though I think on balance not as good as running a modest deficit to fund nice policy). If you just go, yeah no those words are henceforth no-bueno, aren’t you just buying into their doublespeak?

Trumps “platform” was by any measure or definition less fiscally conservative than kamala. Pretty sure the reps left fiscal conservatism in the wasteland with Romney.

The new bullshit dogma for the right wing is “growth”. But I don’t think the Trump parade really even tried to explain that was the goal, or really any coherent economic policy.

Edit: the article seems to make the same point. That previously at least outwardly normal people have gone off the deep end.

Only has a fraction of the strategy and deck building of the actual TCG. Just seems like the usual mobile garbage to me (stamina mechanics, a million currency types, pay to win), shame.

Yup. Betfair in the UK didn’t close or settle their 2020 market for months, even though the terms of the market were about who was declared winner on election night, and were long since met with 100% certainty. That was some very easy money.

I mean some fraction of that market is for sure addicted, which possibly stretches the definition of “like”.

The capital gain is the profit, the collateralized lending is the transaction completed to realize that profit. It’s a logical extension of accepted understandings of those terms and easy to imagine coherent legislation to implement.

You don’t like the idea, that’s fine. But it’s simply not true to claim that it doesn’t make sense and you haven’t been able to articulate any inconsistency. Just saying “nuh uh that’s not profit” is pointless. We all know it doesn’t constitute realized gain in the existing system of laws, but OP and others are suggesting it would a be a sensible way to tax the extraordinary benefits that the ultra-wealthy take from their appreciated assets. It’s been explained to you politely and with sources, if you have nothing more serious to add to the conversation I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Relevant case law: “While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/461/

It is in fact true, and clearly then doesn’t mean that at all. We can and do control what constitutes a realization event, and borrowing is a pretty sensible candidate. I don’t know why you’re losing you mind over this fairly prosaic idea.

Precisely. The medium of value delivery is irrelevant, as soon as you extract value by borrowing against an asset you have completed a transaction and therefore is a point at which it could (/should though that’s the debate I guess) be taxed.

In both cases (payment in bitcoin or borrowing against stock) your remaining position could go to zero leaving you liable for tax you don’t have money to pay, but that’s on you to manage better.

Realization isn’t restricted to “unambiguous outcome with zero question to the providence or final outcome” even in the existing tax code, and what does “final” even mean.

It’s mostly an administrative convenience that we work with sale as the archetypal realization event. And collateralized borrowing is a very good candidate for realization as it inherently involves valuation.

Regarding losses, yeah you could then realized losses which could be used to offset gains from other sources, rolled forward into future tax years and so forth. That’s all a pretty normal part of wealth and tax planning for people with ample and complicated finances. They hire people to handle this, don’t worry about them.

Capital gains are applied against a cost basis, in the case of your homeowner, their purchase price. Unless the house appreciates in value there is 0 capital gain, even if you made the mortgage a realization event and for some reason implemented this with no residence exemption or tax brackets. It’s mad how this point has to be repeatedly explained through this thread.

I was talking about withholding, where I pay taxes that will never come due. On reflection maybe isn’t a perfect analogy.

You haven’t made a persuasive argument (or any argument really) against, you just keep insisting it’s a bad idea.

One thing that stands out is you keep referring to “money that may never exist”. That’s not how tax works. You are taxed on the basis of your income, which is often but not always monetary. This is both intuitive and consistent with existing tax code. If you don’t like it you have a much bigger problem than objecting to taxing unrealized cap gains.

You can absolutely elect how to be paid, you can earn income abroad, receive benefits in kind, stock compensation etc. ALL of which may still be taxed. If your tax return only relates to dollar items, lucky you