I would like an ad-blocker that blocks the "Please enable ads pop-ups"

How about we charge them $62B to keep NORAD running?

My father, who worked in Group Insurance for 35 years, had the best rule of thumb for retirement planning...

He said that $1M at age 65 is worth $60K a year, indexed to inflation, for life.

So, work from there. The original question didn't mention indexing, so you'll have to figure that in. $100K in 50 years will probably be below the poverty line. Also, if not indexed, then the question is almost a simple question of math. The $100K is 5% of $2M, so if you can get a better return than that then the lump sum is better...QED.

If you are younger than 65 then the amount you can draw each year will be lower because you'll need to stretch it out longer.

Let's assume that the amount is indexed to inflation, because that makes the most sense (to me, at least). If you were, say, 30 years old, then the annual amount from the capitol might be as low as $20K in order to last your whole life. In that case you be better off with the annual amount.

If you are older, then it becomes more and more advantageous to take the lump sum, and the two amounts are probably equivalent at around age 60.

Finally, there's risk. With a lump sum you are at the mercy of the markets and your investment decisions. With the annual amount, the risk is involved with the entity issuing that payout. If it's a government entity, depending on the country, it might be way safer than some private company.

[Edit: Really bad error fixed. $1M at 65 is worth $60K/yr, not $100K/yr]

Religion. Ruins. Everything. Every. Time.

The US has been there before with the Nullification Crisis of 1832. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis?wprov=sfla1

Buy Canadian is best, but anything will do if it isn't American.

Take a look at this:

This is in the Museum of the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome, and it comes from an ancient Roman Villa in Rome. Probably painted in the first or second century CE. There's walls of this stuff in the museum.

It's not realism, but minimalistic sketches that, in many ways, outdo realism in artistic quality. To me, this looks more like something that you might find in Leonardo's sketchbook than on the wall of on ancient Roman Villa from 1200 years earlier.

something manufactured of whole cloth and meant to divide us

I'm not so sure about that.

My parents grew up in London during WWII. My father told me that, on any given day, at least one or two of the kids in his school had recently received a letter from the government telling them that their father, uncle or brother had died in the war. Not to mention other deaths from bombings that happen on and off for years. For the most part, the rest of the kids in school never knew who had just had someone killed in the war, although I suppose it eventually came out to become public knowledge. The point being that you could be playing ball with some kid who had just lost a family member, and you wouldn't necessarily know it. He said that this shaped his attitude that death is just a part of life, and something that (in true British fashion) you accepted and moved on with.

This came up when my sister-in-law lost her adult daughter some years back and she was (and is) still struggling with it. My father has a hard time understanding her feelings. The two of them are just 22 years apart in age.

WWII is something that casts a pretty big shadow. But when I was born, it was less than 20 years later and its influence on my attitudes is several orders of magnitude smaller than on my parents.

At the other end. It's hard for anyone much less than 25 years old today to remember life before modern smart phones (if you assume the start of that as the iPhone in 2008). It's hard to deny that the smart phone has radically changed the way that we interact with each other and the world. Yes, old farts like me have adapted to it, but young people today have these things hard-wired in from the beginning.

So far, in this century, it's changing technology that casts the big shadow.

The point being that, while society changes in a continuum, big things that cast big shadows tend to define "eras" that shape the way that young people develop. And those big shadows are what cause "generations" to tend to clump together in attitudes and behaviours. And, no, I don't think this is made up just to divide us.

I'm totally unqualified to comment on this, but something has always itched in my brain about dark matter. It smacks, to me, to be the aether of the 21st century.

Except this is Canada, and $7.50/hr is about as relevant as comparing it to child labour in a t-shirt factory in Bangladesh.

The workplace should have a zero tolerance policy about abuse of the staff. If the particular location is one where there is a significantly non-zero chance of such incidents happening, then there should be a big red button on the wall that sounds and alarm, and summons security and possibly triggers a police response.

Employees should be trained to hit the button at the first hint of abuse. The employer should support them.

Calling customers, "guests". A customer is someone with a business relationship with someone/something else. They're exchanging money for goods and services and have a right to expect certain value for their money.

A guest is something else entirely. A guest has no implicit right to expect a certain any particular level or quality of services. They are dependent on the magnamity of the "host".

Calling a customer a "guest" robs them of status.