Posts by Bryan Gray91
19 posts shown.
gentlestag15 said:Germany currently has about 22% of its annual gas needs sitting in storage, while the European Union average is at 23%. Honestly, I think they'll breeze through the winter just fine, though 😁
https://agsi.gie.eu/
Wait, America only has 12%!! in gas storage?
If we get more coming in through the pipelines, plus the LNG shipments, plus our own domestic production... can we even realistically hit 70-80% for the year?
If that happens, we're looking at massive gas reductions... just waiting to happen.
Nicole James said:The fact that Russia is receiving military equipment could serve as a perfectly valid justification for imposing sanctions on China...
🤣🤣
Just this for Stephen, who seems to think these sanctions are actually going to tank the Russian economy and wreck their currency 🤣
Record Profits for Russia, Easily Avoiding Sanctions
USD-RUB
Arthur Watson4 said:It's not actually that hard, ☕
to figure out.
Honestly, this guy thinks he’s some kind of visionary because he’s buying up NFTs, yet he expects everyone to take his takes on inflation and wartime politics seriously.
Plus, he clearly loses all composure whenever someone starts talking about targeting an energy plant... just totally loses it.
Trying to have a decent debate in the DMs with this one is basically impossible...
Honestly, for kids, COVID is such a minor thing that it’s almost negligible, and just hearing people bring up vaccination makes me feel physically ill.
Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.
Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.
Look, 40 percent of an insignificant percentage is still an insignificant percentage based on any standard epidemiological criteria we know. If the scientific or social benchmarks have shifted, then people need to say so clearly, because according to the current consensus, there isn't one... reducing flu cases among young people by 40 percent still wouldn't justify pushing a vaccine like this on them.... it's a 1:0 score against that specific argument.
Furthermore, if you're looking strictly at the benefits of vaccination versus the side effects, it’s a clear 1:0 win for the side effects—which makes it a total 2:0 blowout against this line of reasoning.
Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.
Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.
"WE DON'T KNOW" has never been a scientifically necessary or sufficient condition; vaccines are built on science ---> a scientific "I DON'T KNOW" doesn't exist as a valid reason to take action ---> using vaccine application as an argument based on uncertainty is scientifically unjustifiable.
We can keep going if you want...☕
mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁
Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.
Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.
What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛
The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa
I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.
Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.
Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.
Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.
later
And honestly, I haven't heard one single convincing argument yet either...🤷
briskjackal5 said:The whole thing is trickier than it looks on the surface, I guess.
I’ve been digging through the stats over at the CDC, and man, they had something like 200,000 hospitalizations for people under 17 right here in the USA, and that was all just leading up to this past May.
-Stipe
200k? Are we seriously talking about 200,000 hospitalizations now? What kind of numbers are we even looking at here...
So, let's say you’ve got 200,000 people sitting in hospital beds, and every single one of them tests positive for the common cold upon admission... then 1% of those folks pass away. According to the official narrative, the conclusion would be that 1% of children died from catching a cold. It’s just... it’s getting ridiculous at this point. They're stretching the logic so far it's bound to snap, and honestly? This isn't going to end well...
Matthew Jackson2 said:But really, the real question is the nature of those admissions.
Because you can't just lump them all together; it is a completely different beast whether you're talking about a massive wave of kids with zero pre-existing health issues being hospitalized due to COVID symptoms, versus a group of kids with established high-risk factors being admitted for COVID, or—which is a huge distinction—kids who happened to test positive for the virus during an admission for an entirely unrelated medical issue.
Simply finding kids who test positive while they are already in the hospital for something else doesn't provide any meaningful argument for vaccination.
As for children who have known high-risk underlying conditions, this entire "risk vs. benefit" math falls apart for them, and they should absolutely be consulting with their own specialists regarding any vaccination decisions.
While I was hunting around trying to track down the specific breakdown for those numbers, I stumbled upon this link: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_5.html
According to this link, within the specific area covered by the program—which represents roughly 10% of the population—there were a total of 4,123 COVID-related hospitalizations for those under 18, cumulatively up until September 18, 2021.
Honestly, I have no idea where that 200,000 figure you mentioned came from, because if we're seeing only 4,123 cases in a sample representing 10% of the population, then that 200,000 number seems incredibly dubious to me.
Furthermore, those 4,123 cases include everyone who tested positive upon admission, regardless of what actually brought them into the hospital in the first place.
If they’re already out here throwing around completely bogus numbers like 15,000 deaths in America, only for you to spend ten seconds checking the official Bureau of Labor Statistics website and realizing the actual count is closer to 9,000... then yeah, you have every right to be skeptical about everything else they say. Once the math doesn't add up, the trust is gone...
brightviper29 said:Honestly, looking at these poll results is just plain terrifying.
Instead of people feeling relieved or happy that they actually have the choice to vaccinate their children, over 80% of you seem to be pushing back against it.
It feels like we’re dealing with a collective wave of madness here, almost like we've regressed to some medieval mindset—as if we were living under the thumb of the Inquisition, the old USSR, the former UN, or even modern-day South Korea. 🤦
I’d really like to ask the site admins to just lock this thread and wipe these poll results clean. 😁
It honestly scares me to death that there are people out there who would actually want to vaccinate their kid... I just don't get it, it makes zero sense to me... and since you're clearly part of that crowd... well, just imagine how much I don't trust you.
Megan Green72 said:In what sense, exactly? How exactly do you think your kid gets a safe vaccine or medicine if it isn't tested on someone else first? 🤔
Oh, please, stop acting like you’re some kind of expert and lecturing me. If you’re so incredibly confident in all this, why don't you just go ahead and volunteer your own kid to be a guinea pig for the vaccine trial? Let's see how much you talk then...
a) If one company sells that depreciated property to another firm at its full market value, can the new owner start chipping away at their tax base using that 5% annual depreciation rate?
b) And what if we’re talking about an acquisition—if a whole company gets bought out by another corporation, can the parent company then claim that long-term asset (the property that used to belong to the first firm) to lower their taxable income at that same 5% yearly rate?
So, I’ve been chewing on this tax question for a bit... If a corporation holds some long-term real estate and has spent the last 20 years slashing its taxable income by applying a 5% annual depreciation rate—meaning the property is now fully depreciated—can anyone tell me how the tax base behaves in the very first year after that depreciation hits zero?
For instance:
- Let's say the building was worth $1 million, which means we were claiming $50,000 in depreciation every single year.
- Now, if the company's pre-tax profit—looking at all expenses *except* for that depreciation—was also sitting right at $50,000, that would mean the actual taxable income every year was just $0.00.
- What happens in the specific year when you can't claim any more depreciation, but every other variable stays exactly the same? In this scenario, does the taxable income suddenly jump up to $50,000?
Just tell me straight—would this actually help my workflow? If a new setup is noticeably faster, it might eventually pay for itself... I know Flash can be a total nightmare, but I did a little digging online and found some ways to tweak my browser settings so it actually behaves itself. I’m running 64-bit Windows now, too, so it really just comes down to one thing: would having a processor that's roughly 3X more powerful along with a decent bump in RAM actually make things feel significantly snappier?
Hey everyone, I’m rocking an old setup from about 4 or 5 years ago, running a Core i7 at 2.33 GHz with 4 GB of DDR3 RAM and an SSD. I don't really game, so I won't bother listing a GPU here.
The thing is, my PC still handles my daily tasks perfectly fine, but whenever I try to open a ton of browser tabs at once—specifically sites that rely heavily on Flash, maybe 10 to 15 pages deep—the whole system just chokes. It slows down so much that trying to navigate anything feels like wading through molasses. Since that's how I work most of the time, I end up with this constant impression that the machine is just sluggish...
So, here’s my question: if I upgrade to a modern build with a newer i7, 8 or 16 GB of RAM, and a fast SSD, am I actually going to see a massive speed boost when dealing with Flash? Or is Flash just fundamentally broken and incapable of actually utilizing high-end hardware properly? If anyone has dealt with this, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a high-end rig right now to test it out myself and see the difference firsthand.
Arthur Howard said:It’s probably because those offshore bookies operate in such a shady way...🙂
BetMGM pulls stunts so ridiculous I honestly start wondering if they’re doing it on purpose just to wash money. They are incredibly risky when it comes to actually protecting your cash, and man, do they know how to hit you with those account limits fast.
I heard that every single new account over there gets slapped with the lowest possible limits right out of the gate.
silverridge3 said:Does anyone actually use DraftKings? I've been looking around and can't figure out if anyone from the US can even sign up there... I just don't see any way to do it... USA Wait, so when you're actually going through the registration process, does the state show up on the list? Or am I just overthinking this whole thing...
They banned them. It’s ridiculous... they made way too much money on live betting over here in the States, and now suddenly they're pulling the plug. 🙂
It’s honestly pretty pathetic when you look at the big picture. It seems like those Russian betting sites just aren't interested in catering to American users anymore. It’s actually kind of sad... I mean, you have these massive global gambling giants, huge players on the world stage, and they’re actually intimidated by a market as small as the US? It’s wild if you think about it... just total cowardice from the big guys...
steelpilot29 said:ps. That Ladbrokes account isn't actually mine, but since it's an American one, I topped it up without any issues besides those limits mentioned... I haven't heard of anyone running into this specific problem, at least not for that reason.
If I'm following correctly, Ladbrokes let them put down 600 bucks on futsal.
That means the account must have been opened a long time ago, because lately, every single account opened in the US on Ladbrokes gets hit with an automatic limit right away (like maybe 50-100 dollars for NBA games and stuff like that)...
Hey everyone, can someone walk me through how things work with Goldman Sachs when an employee gets laid off but the employer still owes them unpaid wages? I need to know what paperwork is required and what the actual order of operations is for collecting those claims—does a worker have any kind of legal leg up here? To make matters more complicated, the employer's bank account is totally frozen because they’re buried in debt, owing everything from federal taxes and payroll taxes to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and who knows what else...
Thanks!
I was wondering if there are any active clinical trials happening here in the States right now specifically for colon cancer? I'm also curious about how things are looking abroad—is there a way to track down that kind of info or see what's being tested in other countries?