Post a quote, that could have just been text but instead for some stupid reason is an image, entertain me!

Vargen wrote:
Stengah wrote:

All billionaires are millionaires but not all millionaires are billionaires. They didn't stop being millionaires once they became billionaires.

I found an error in your calculations. You forgot to carry the poetic license.

I'm of the mind that false hope is worse than no hope. Gates and Bezos are still closer than the people the image is meant to encourage, at least in terms of the effort required to become one. They could demote themselves to mere millionaires in a matter of moments.

Stengah wrote:
Vargen wrote:
Stengah wrote:

All billionaires are millionaires but not all millionaires are billionaires. They didn't stop being millionaires once they became billionaires.

I found an error in your calculations. You forgot to carry the poetic license.

I'm of the mind that false hope is worse than no hope. Gates and Bezos are still closer than the people the image is meant to encourage, at least in terms of the effort required to become one. They could demote themselves to mere millionaires in a matter of moments.

I think you read it wrong.

I read the statement as an example of how massive the wealth gap really is.

Jayhawker wrote:

I read the statement as an example of how massive the wealth gap really is.

I read it as a statement on how innumerate swathes of the population are. Why else would you have to point out that (1 million- your income) < (1 billion - 1 million) with a fricking meme?

Jonman wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I read the statement as an example of how massive the wealth gap really is.

I read it as a statement on how innumerate swathes of the population are. Why else would you have to point out that (1 million- your income) < (1 billion - 1 million) with a fricking meme?

Because people are bad with numbers? It's the same reason this was/is a thing:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/I0y2ltT.jpg)

Besides, a million and a billion can't be THAT different, it's only one letter.

Jayhawker wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Vargen wrote:
Stengah wrote:

All billionaires are millionaires but not all millionaires are billionaires. They didn't stop being millionaires once they became billionaires.

I found an error in your calculations. You forgot to carry the poetic license.

I'm of the mind that false hope is worse than no hope. Gates and Bezos are still closer than the people the image is meant to encourage, at least in terms of the effort required to become one. They could demote themselves to mere millionaires in a matter of moments.

I think you read it wrong.

I read the statement as an example of how massive the wealth gap really is.

Oh, I knew that was the intent.

Jonman wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I read the statement as an example of how massive the wealth gap really is.

I read it as a statement on how innumerate swathes of the population are. Why else would you have to point out that (1 million- your income) < (1 billion - 1 million) with a fricking meme?

Why do it in a meme?
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/2CFWiIM.gif)

There's a great book Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences by John Allen Paulos which covers this very subject. It's been a while since I read it (it came out in 1988) but it had some great examples illustrating how big some numbers are and the consequences of not grasping it. It also talked about how many people don't have a basic understanding of statistics and probability. One example that's still stuck in my mind 30 years later is the story he told of a TV weatherman reporting that "There's a 50% chance of rain on Saturday and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday. Therefore there's a 100% chance that it will rain sometime this weekend."

The lottery industry relies on those consequences. People fail to grasp that playing the same numbers each draw does not increase their odds of winning.

Stengah wrote:

The lottery industry relies on those consequences. People fail to grasp that playing the same numbers each draw does not increase their odds of winning.

On the plus side, it doesn't decrease it either.

Personally, I don't play lottery, but if I did, I'd pick a sequential series of numbers. It's no more or less likely to occur, and if by some chance it did I'd likely have fewer people to split the money with..

Valmorian wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The lottery industry relies on those consequences. People fail to grasp that playing the same numbers each draw does not increase their odds of winning.

On the plus side, it doesn't decrease it either.

Personally, I don't play lottery, but if I did, I'd pick a sequential series of numbers. It's no more or less likely to occur, and if by some chance it did I'd likely have fewer people to split the money with..

I've seen suggestions that you never play numbers 12 or less and avoid numbers 31 or less because so many people play dates that you are actually better off playing higher numbers, because you are less likely to have to split your (unlikely) winnings with someone else.

tanstaafl wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The lottery industry relies on those consequences. People fail to grasp that playing the same numbers each draw does not increase their odds of winning.

On the plus side, it doesn't decrease it either.

Personally, I don't play lottery, but if I did, I'd pick a sequential series of numbers. It's no more or less likely to occur, and if by some chance it did I'd likely have fewer people to split the money with..

I've seen suggestions that you never play numbers 12 or less and avoid numbers 31 or less because so many people play dates that you are actually better off playing higher numbers, because you are less likely to have to split your (unlikely) winnings with someone else.

I don't play lotteries because they are a tax on people who can't do math.

tanstaafl wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The lottery industry relies on those consequences. People fail to grasp that playing the same numbers each draw does not increase their odds of winning.

On the plus side, it doesn't decrease it either.

Personally, I don't play lottery, but if I did, I'd pick a sequential series of numbers. It's no more or less likely to occur, and if by some chance it did I'd likely have fewer people to split the money with..

I've seen suggestions that you never play numbers 12 or less and avoid numbers 31 or less because so many people play dates that you are actually better off playing higher numbers, because you are less likely to have to split your (unlikely) winnings with someone else.

There is a very good reason to never play a regular set of numbers. At some point, you won't get a ticket bought. If those numbers hit, you will know exactly what you did that cost you. If you play random, then there is zero risk of thinking that you blew it by not playing.

Even if you decide to quit playing the the lottery, the moment those numbers hit, it becomes that moment you were that close. It can make it much harder to stop.

My parents used to take us to the racetrack once a year in Nebraska. We would get a hotel the night before and my dad would get the betting guides, and we would learn to read them and predict races, and plan our bets.

One year I was just getting shellacked every race. On the very last race I had taken what I had left and created a ties of bets that included an exacta and some other stuff. It was based on my research, but obviously a risky bet. My dad asked me if I really thought it was good idea to do these, as I was just going all the money he had given us to gamble with. I agreed and decided to pocket what I had left.

The horses came in and I missed out on several hundred dollars.

The plus side is that over time, I realized sports betting was something I really hated. To do it smartly meant to stop being a fan, which ruins sports. I only bet on teams I am rooting for. The odds mean I will get pretty much what I paid for. When they are favored, I will win more often, but less money. When they are underdogs, I will win less often, but more money. But it's always for fun, not to prove how much I know.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/lGL8uRU.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/k1s36J7.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/9o28WhJ.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XCl7bW4.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/0Izp0Ip.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/pyYnOUX.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/O2UwJmY.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/K74VUKJ.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/CqPGduh.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/8cRSMLl.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/hyrbYIJ.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/CFnzHaI.jpg)

I kinda want the third one on my car.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rYf6C8N.png)

Trachalio wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rYf6C8N.png)

Pineapples!!!!

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/u0xv831lxu131.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/5zkjHg1.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/fMmgJkY.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/FDbOtXR.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/2l7kjvj.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/EnNgYcf.png)

That modifier is vital so that you can immediately tell in a verbal setting whether there are oncoming "great green dragons" or "green Great-Dragons". Although I would have words with any party member who insisted on using little-g "great", little-d "dire" or other similar adjectives when describing creatures. If he asks the ranger "Where wolf?" I'll straight up stab him.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/bN76AT3.gif)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XU6LXr9.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/au0salg.jpg)

IMAGE(https://preview.redd.it/1aef7mmhmn331.jpg?width=720&auto=webp&s=1ca9698d631875b3460dbedd3a2bef7d5b9b3e7a)

That is staggeringly bad design.

Hooooly sh*t did that take me forever to figure out what it actually says

Trachalio wrote:

Hooooly sh*t did that take me forever to figure out what it actually says

And we were even given the most blatant hint possible! Still could not parse.