Mirado's forum posts

#1 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

Yes, but I've also noted as being very level-headed. Hell, I've been called "the most reasonable and grounded person" and then "absolutely crazy" by the same person in the span of hours...which makes me wonder which one of us is truly crazy.

It's still me, probably.

#2 Edited by Mirado (993 posts) -

@broomhitches: "What should I do with my money?" is probably the second worst thing you can ask the internet, right behind asking for medical advice. There are too many variables to consider. Off the top of my head:

  1. How much do you have?
  2. What kind of return do you expect? (Protip: Expectations are bad for your health.)
  3. How much risk are you willing to take?
  4. What time frame are you looking for on your expected return?
  5. Are you willing to tie this money up for an extended period of time? Or do you need day to day access?
  6. How active are you willing to be in managing this investment? Do you just want to sit and (hopefully) let it grow?
  7. If all this money went away tomorrow, could you get by?

And so on. When I first started investing, I had sub $20k to put in, had an indefinite time frame to let it grow, didn't need day to day access, was willing to let the principle sit and any gains reinvest, and if it all went away, it wouldn't bother my day-to-day life in the slightest. So I leaned towards a growth orientated mutual fund and allowed the dividends to reinvest as they came in twice annually. It's made quite a bit now, because even as the market took a battering, I never touched it, it kept paying near a dollar per share in dividends, and the market has recovered to the point that now I'm double my initial purchase price. It isn't my only investment, but so far, it's done the best for me.

Hell, my grandfather put $50k in back when the fund first started, and the price per share was $2.50. It's $70 now. Without factoring in any additional investments...well, you do the math. But I want to stress that this is NOT TYPICAL. I'm no millionaire because I tossed a few grand into a "magic" fund or anything like that, and you won't see results overnight. It took my grandfather 50 years to see that kind of return.

You need to carefully consider the risks. Maybe a municipal bond fund would be better? The risk is certainly lower, and it pays monthly, but as such the potential gains are lower....but now I've just fallen into the same speculation trap I suggested was a terrible thing to listen to.

Bottom line: Do some research. Talk to a professional. Don't take the professional's word at face value. Talk to a second professional. Bounce the first's ideas off of the second. And make sure it's money you can lose, because at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a sure bet.

#3 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@horseman6: Ah, my mistake. Well, the end result is relatively the same; honestly, I think a better question would be "what method do you cook your steak" as you point out, sous vide just turns everything to butter.

#4 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

Medium rare is the only way to get a steak if you are aiming for it to be as tender as possible; rare meat hasn't reached the point where the internal marbling will render, so it will actually wind up tougher than one cooked to medium rare. Medium and above just dries the meat out further.

As I only cook meat by sous vide anymore, I've gotten super crazy with temperatures. 127 F is my current go-to. Toss it in the water bath, wait 90 minutes, pull it out, grab the torch, sear it, and you're good to go. It cannot be beat.

#5 Edited by Mirado (993 posts) -

@zgoon: It's still up. I'm just about finished with the videos, only 10 or so left. Getting near 70GB worth of content, and I haven't even loaded in the podcasts yet.

Handy to not be constrained by storage limits. :D

#6 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@snakevsgiantbomb: Something tells me that defecting to "the people of Crimea" serves Russia's interests far more than it does for Ukraine. If the end result of all of this winds up with an autonomous Crimea, that's a win in Russia's book. Every person that would rather serve a breakaway, pro-Russian faction (as for "not a single solider since", I'm glad you've interviewed every solider in the country and determined what they would do when the chips fall. Just because everything looks status quo on the outside says nothing about a person's internal monologue) is one less person (solider or citizen) Ukraine has to hold onto the region.

I'm not claiming to be an expert or fortune teller, but the situation looks rough and is getting rougher.

#7 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@korolev said:

(no idea why, even if they consider themselves Russian, who actually wants to live in Russia?)

Russia, at least in comparison to Ukraine, has done quite well for itself. Sure, they had a major economic slump in 1998, and things are starting to get a bit wobbly again, but from 99' to 07', they more than doubled their GDP, knocked out a lot of corruption (well, non-Putin sanctioned corruption, but let's not get even more politically speculative), have piles of natural resources, and a leader that people like...and slightly idolize...and have started to build a sort of cult of personality around (seriously, have you ever seen the SuperPutin comics, or all those weird shots of him bare-chested in Siberia or white water rafting?), but ignoring the creepier bits he's a far better personality than what Ukraine's had for leaders over the past few years. Yeah, the whole "personal freedoms" thing is starting to tank, and the Kremin's a big rubber stamp factory, but at least Russia has gone from this broke, downtrodden, Soviet hangover period to a slightly-scary-and-getting-scarier country, which puts it firmly in the "grass is always greener" category if you live in Ukraine. They haven't really been on their feet since Stalin decided to play a game of ethnic musical chairs and move everyone about.

Speaking of ethnic musical chairs, that's another big reason. Lotta people living in Crimea were proper Russians 50 or so years ago (as in lived in Russia, not as in "part of the USSR"), so it makes sense that they feel closer to a Russia that, on the surface at least, seems to have it's shit together. As mentioned by others, the cultural ties go back a long, long way.

The best thing for Ukraine is to mobilize its military, put all of its soldiers on the border and around Crimea and just... not let the Russians through. Don't start a fight - just block their way and refuse to move. Putin may not risk shooting up Ukrainians in an actual war (although he was prepared to fight Georgia - but remember, it was Georgia that fired the first shots). The principle thing for Ukraine is to NOT BE TRICKED INTO FIRING THE FIRST SHOT. DO NOT DO THAT. IF YOU FIRE FIRST, PUTIN WINS. Putin will have the excuse to move in straight away into the Eastern Areas.

I'm not sure of Russia's actual aim here; my assumption is they just want Crimea, as it has a number of strategic uses. With that being said, if Russia decides they want to pay any part of that country a visit, I'm not sure there's anything that Ukraine can do to stop them. Even if they linked arms and started singing We Are the World, Russia could airdrop people over them, or form a column and roll through them. The Ukrainian army is flaccid. It is designed to handle internal threats and not outside aggressors, and has seen a number of cutbacks. Their defense budget was a microscopic $1.6B dollars in 2012 (Russia spends that much on training bears for Putin to wrestle each year), programs to develop the army are, and I quote, "at a zero level."

But you make a very salient point: Putin doesn't want this to turn into a shooting match. He'd win, hell he'd probably win easily. But shootin' first is bad for your image. However, I don't think he'll need to; I think you'll see enough corruption and defections in the coming weeks that any effective resistance will be rendered moot without outside interference. The head of the navy already hopped onto Mr. Putin's Wild Ride, and something tells me he won't be the last. Now, I don't mean to say that the entirety of the Ukraine will be ripe for the picking, but I honestly believe the Crimea's gone and they will not get it back.

#8 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@truthtellah: I find it strange that we have so many people launching preemptive strikes on anyone and everyone, in an attempt to convince the masses of their point of view, rather than your typical reactionary thread. Both you and @joshwent mention this, but what the hell actually provokes those threads? Some have been surprisingly elaborate and resourceful, but still as unhinged as usual, if not even more dedicated to their particular brand of delusions.

Why, though? I'm not sure that any GB staff can really incite that kind of anger in people (I could be wrong, but I thought that the vast majority of people view them as super jaded?), and we don't have roving bands of fanboys, so what is it? Do they just need an outlet? They seem to spring up after a critical news post pops up somewhere, but why do they vent it all here, when the vast majority of people won't engage, and the ones that do are usually smart enough to tear them apart?

Seems far more suited to Gamefaqs, GAF, Gamespot, or IGN. I just don't know.

#9 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: If you want to make a Pokemon spin-off with action elements in it, I say why the hell not. Go right ahead. I think it can coexist with the core games of the series just fine.

But if you are telling me that you want to monkey around with the underlying mechanics that make a mainline Pokemon game what it is, then hell no. That's what happened with Castlevaina; SotN is a fun game, with (at the time) interesting RPG mechanics and a fresh look at the Metroid formula. It also has so little to do with the original games that I wish they named it something else.

If you want a to make the equivalent of a Mario Kart for the Pokemon franchise, go for it. But calling something Pokemon, putting a bunch of characters in it from the main games, and having recognizable music won't make it a "Pokemon game" if you turn it into something that it never was. That's like trying to tell me you made an Action RPG Fire Emblem game. Cool and all, but it's not Fire Emblem if it isn't a turn based strategic RPG.

#10 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@finaldasa: I meant things more along the lines of Ramblin' Rorie, the Shyamalan feature with Dave, the one Screening Room that's listed, and the remaining misc. videos in that section like the one Behind the Screened Door video.

To be honest, I don't even see the HHs listed anywhere.