Oh! I see where you misunderstood. No, Trump -the Putin worshipping, endorsed by Duterte, wannabe dictator- is the fascism that will be more unchecked than the first time he was elected. They were referring to the immediate next two years, not any hope of a come back where fascist policies like policing women's bodies or banning lgbta+ rights will be attempted to be repealed.

They're talking about the ones who openly worship dictators, not the liberals that currently have no control.

At least it has some years for the inevitable bounce left. It's getting there. Just kind of something someone trying to retire would have a panic over.

Yeah. You're right. And their recounting of what they invested in makes no sense. I caught that later. So there's definitely poor choices somewhere they aren't mentioning.

Okay... I even came with receipts on this one. Am I just annoying? What's with the downvote, even on ones where people are suggesting target date funds? The fund will bounce, it's just a huge dip for one that was supposed to be, according to professionals, safe for retirement use. So sure, I can see the downvote as disagreeing with sensationalism, but I was contesting the suggestion that no funds dropped in that time. If it's because I got spammy, sure... I assume most people don't reread the other comments after the first time they go through, but I can stop.

For reference, target date funds are still usually good, but total stock index is always better in a ten year period, so whether they are actually worth it is questionable.

Not sure. I'm guessing interest rate stuff will mess with anything with bond holdings, so that probably had stuff to do with it. Other than that.. I don't know if I can convey a big enough shrug in text form.

Good point.

Yeah. Something doesn't add up. The worst dip of what you mention is the blue chip large cap, but the curve you posted looks like VTINX or the vanguard 2030-2040 target date funds, not any of the funds you listed.

Target date funds are also supposed to be set and forget, but this looks like the curve from Vanguards 2030 through at least 2040 target date funds.

The 2030 target fund is still down 8.8% since that date.

All target date funds through vanguard tanked that year unless you have 2060 or later as the target. 2030 lost 25% and hasn't yet recovered.

They likely were using a full retirement fund, like VTINX or Vanguard Target 2030 or something like that. All of them tanked in the end of 2021 up to target 2060. Even my shares in the Total Bond Index tanked then, and those are supposed to be as low risk as possible, literally.

Stop. The Vanguard retirement funds all did this if the target is before 2060. And those are invested in index funds by professionals. OP likely had the VTINX or a total bond fund, both of which did this that year and were recommended for during retirement. This is likely the more liquid portion of the portfolio, not the penny stock portion.

The close to retirement ones suffered that year. The 2030 target lost 25% in less than a year recently and hasn't recovered. Ironically, the high risk ones have been less risky during COVID than the low risk ones.

Check the vanguard target retirement income fund (vtinx) and other similar funds. There was a dip in 2021 that absolutely destroyed a number of retirements, my patents included, despite being low risk options. Total bond index funds also suffered for some reason, and those are as low risk as you can get. Every other fund I have is doing great, but the ones that are supposed to be safe are not doing great.

But did Das Boo Schitt get a Michael Bay adaptation? Also... Why does Michael Bay own the rights to skibidi toilet now? What timeline did I wake up in?

Yeah, but I don't think they'll keep it unless it turns a profit. Meta as a whole will always have ads which literally print money for free, but they'll Google the VR line as soon as their lizard overlord gets bored of the metaverse idea. Maybe they'll sell it instead of close it like Google always does, actually... That would be nice.

I am being somewhat exaggerative with word choices.

I don't see them turning a profit on the market after killing their competitors. I don't get their angle. Unless they can offer something truly transformative, they're going to put themselves out of business doing that.

But yeah, they have this all in on VR/AR mentality which I don't see working out. Killing the competition does guarantee no one else makes a good product either.

Thank you. Also, kind of fair, but the library probably needs to be bigger before people are willing to adopt too.

I always kind of thought a good desktop system, where wearing the headset is cheaper than getting a new larger monitor or more monitors, but the long term comfort of wearing a headset instead kills that idea pretty strongly right now. Even just a theater experience is kinda meh.

Porn does tend to sell technological advances though.

You can now get refurbished for around $200. Mostly the meta quest 2. I'd be happier with something that isn't meta affiliated, but it's a solid headset. Considering how expensive most of the rest are, getting it down this far is pretty good. Maybe in a decade, there will be more entry headsets at this price point or lower.

Convenience: meta has hand tracking as controllers and can play games by itself so you only need to put the headset on, and theirs is much lighter than the old vives I cut my VR teeth on. The head strap isn't great still for convenience, but there are third party straps that are much easier to put on and take off. The framework for convenient VR is there, but support is dwindling as there's not much money in the VR market compared to the cost vs anything else in games.

I hate that most of this is about meta, but I haven't seen anyone else really making great strides in VR. There's a Chinese company I need to find again which apparently made super light headsets I was going to keep an eye on and forgot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You introduced the idea of not wanting women to give birth in a conversation where the only thing brought up was women don't have to give birth to be valid. Women not wanting children is as valid as women wanting children.

The straw man here is the anti-natalism.