If you own your home, you don't need anywhere near 10M to live an "upper middle class" lifestyle.

I generally do not disagree, but that’s kind of like saying: if you already have $X, then you just need $Y - $X.

My answer is based on someone going from $0 to $Y, i.e. the most conservative interpretation.

Not true at all. Look at Apple.

Make a trip once a week or every other week into town (1hr drive) to pick up groceries.

Doctors, etc. - why do you need to be close? 1-2 hr drive for something so infrequent does not seem to be an issue.

You learn to fix your own stuff.

At least during the pandemic, housing outside of city centers have been in high demand as people seek more land/space.

At the very least, you will get injured doing farmwork. I don't have statistics on hand, but I'd wager the need for emergency medical support is likely far higher than a white collar office job.

You seem to be healthy with no chronic issues, which is good to hear. If you become sick or injured, and especially if you or a family member develops certain long term issues, you may need to visit a specialist multiple times a month. Sometimes these specialists are only available in major cities.

fair enough!

people said that in 2021, 2022, and for about decades prior...

There was a 30% drop in March 20202: it just happened to recover quickly once people stopped panicking about the lockdowns. There was no reason why people had to stop panicking though: it could have continued.

Also, in 2018Q4, the S&P 500 drew down by 20%.

Per Adams: DON"T PANIC.

Amazon lost 90% of its value once upon a time. If you can hold beyond a decade then you have nothing to fear.

And yet, here we are...

lol

The markets go up and down. Inflation, well...

Let this be a lesson that the business comes first. Security is important - but the business is more important.

> Let this be a lesson that the business comes first. Security is important - but the business is more important.

Sound security practices enable good business, e.g giving teams a paved road (https://www.slideshare.net/diannemarsh/the-paved-road-at-net...) that enables rapid and secure releases in place of gates.

At least from what few accounts I've heard from engineering in Twitter, it doesn't sound like Mr. Agrawal has much faith in this idea, but that just means he'll be the first to go in the event of the next inevitable breach.

Watch it be over something dumb like stolen NFTs.

It is often failure of the security leadership when security is not aligned with business goals.

Agreed, 100%

I wonder, if you hold other psychoactive substances - say coffee, alcohol, or nicotine to the same standard?

That is, we should assume they cause long term impairment without the need for any kind of study?

You should assume any disturbance of your brains chemical equilibrium is bad long term. Those drugs included. Absent fixing a specific deficiency that is.

If a study comes back and says, with a high confidence, that isn't the case for this or that, great, but I think it's a safe assumption for most chemicals.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm saying it's not enough to show something is bad, as pretty much everything is bad. It has to be bad enough to matter.

If you take the point a step further, your argument can be applied to everything including sugar, salt, etc.

I think we are mostly in agreement - that any substance entering the body will have some effect.

The question is what effect, how much of an effect, and wether it is permanent/long lasting. Questions which require a study to answer.

Totally agree. However, I highly doubt such a study will be possible for the same reasons we still argue about salt and sugar: what's the control?

Unless we're able to find twins that live largely the same lives absent the one factor, we are really only capable of sussing out the especially harmful things with long term lifestyle studies. If cannabis is as bad as sugar, then we have 40 years of back and forth to look forward to, and the answer will ultimately be: A little bit is bad, but not bad enough to matter more than how many steps you took today, or how sad or angry you were, or how late you ate dinner.

I don’t think assumption is the correct stance, but a healthy skepticism sounds in order.

Alcohol is clearly capable of long term impairment, the debate seems to be about dose response. Nicotine is more questionable, but clearly leaves long term changes in the mind. People abstaining after long term nicotine usage will spend the rest of their lives experiencing cravings. Hell, it seems plausible long term consumption of food types has long term cognitive effects.

This has been obvious for a long time.