I watched this at a local film festival and it was WILD. Dude was just a scared little narcissist his whole life.

The acting in this movie was exceptional. Definitely worth watching.

That dump truck of an ass would never fit into a pair of Levi's

God what a transparently lame pro-Trump propaganda meme. Boooorrring, next!

Are any "undecided" voters actually swayed by this useless garbage?

LMFAO you nerd

Pluck out their eyes, more like

Doesn't proof-of-stake boil down to "if you're hoarding a billion dollars, you're inherently more trustworthy"?

Now why some of these other US based publications are toeing the line set by Khare is baffling.

The answer is pretty much always "money".

Sorry if I miscommunicated. No, they're not selling your home address. But the idea that they aren't monetizing your personal data aggressively is laughably wrong and heavily documented.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and

Yeah, it's truly fantastic that they're aggressively rolling this out to whom it's most needed, first.

Yeah, it's a deferred accounting technique that's similar to the idea behind accounts payable / receivable.

For revenue due in the future, you book in a "sale" to accounts receivable, and then record the profit when the sale is delivered (in full or proportionally). That future loan revenue is an asset held by the bank until its actually received from the client and converted to current cash flow.

PCLs are effectively an offset to accounts receivable. I think it's technically a negative asset and not a liability, but that's not important. If everything goes right with a loan, the bank receives interest payable and the original principal. That was all logged as an expected receivable by the bank. When the bank chooses to believe more people will have difficulty paying their loans back, the bank increases PCLs to reduce the "expectation of owed income". The idea is that the PCL figure is supposed to both be a backward-looking indicator of good loan creation behaviour at the banks, and a forward-looking signal to government or shareholders about a pending problem that the bank has identified.

Usually what actually winds up happening is the banks create too-high PCLs, which then are reversed later, magically re-creating those assets & profits in a future reporting period.

So, while PCLs are an important part of IFRS accounting for the finance sector, they also introduce a LOT of ability for banking executives to "manage" their overall level of taxable earnings. For example, if you don't want to show huge earnings at a particular calendar year-end because of a proposed windfall tax on the banking sector...

Eh, I don't think there's much of an argument for UBI to not be means-tested. If it's meant to be a basic support so that people can maintain dignity through their most difficult time, I doubt you're seeing people choosing early retirement. Besides, OAS and GIS are already means-tested basic income for seniors.

As for big inflationary force? Maybe? But the idea that lifting a limited portion of the population out of the worst of financial circumstances will cause problematic inflation is pretty laughable. Economists still don't know what actually causes inflation, apart from the expectation of inflation.

Its landlords - so non-principal residences - and invested in real estate as in ownership of REITs or private real estate corporations.

So, nothing at all to do with principal residences, which is pretty amazingly clear when you click the link and read the article.