OldSchoolSnapper
-
Posts
11,979 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by OldSchoolSnapper
-
The key word is when withdrawing. Your pre-tax account withdrawals are taxed. What he's saying is correct. If the tax rates are identical, the after-tax value of both accounts is exactly the same. You can run this through a calculator and it will always be the case.
-
This is empirically false. For most young people, Roth is almost always the best option. As you age and advance in your career, traditional IRAs start to make more sense. Generally I would say above the 24% tax bracket the traditional starts to really break away. The brackets 15% and below make up more than 3/4 of the US tax base and Roth is a slam dunk winner there. There are exceptions to every rule and so many variables that everyone really needs to research this for themselves (what state you will retire in, what kind of income mobility you expect over your career, etc.) and there are other benefits of Roth which make it attractive to lower bracket households. They can tap into the contributions for any reason at any time without penalty, which is not ideal, but they are the folks most likely to need it. But the statement that "most" people will do "far" better in a traditional just isn't true. Even if you take out the 0% bracket, which is a lot of people who probably don't have this choice to make, the 10 and 15% still comprise the majority of the tax base. For households at median and probably up to twice that, my advice would be to have a traditional 401k if offered at work, and max out a Roth, and do checkups at life stages to see if conversions make sense. The only thing that's "almost always" true is a that Roth is superior for young people.
-
Small, nit-picky thing. This is 95% true, but it was the new board member hires from Chewy (has done very well) about 2 weeks ago that kicked this into high gear.
-
Agree that thin crust is usually best and my preferred pie. I do like deep dish though and it goes further if sharing with a large group.
-
That's not too far from what it is. It's basically a ciabatta as a crust. I'm not sure why that would make it bad though. I like all forms of pizza. Some more than others.
-
The pizza did change as I noted, but honestly, usually it's you that changes more than the food. I use strong words with food sometimes but really, I've had maybe 1 or 2 pizzas ever that were so bad I wouldn't want to eat them. There are all kinds of things I used to enjoy, like Egg McMcMuffins and Dunkin, that I find almost totally devoid of any flavor if I eat them now. Pizza Hut, Papa's, whatever, most of it is "fine" to me, it's just that once you move around and have authentic pies you start to realize your opinions on pizza from high school weren't especially well formed.
-
If you like Rocky's, you'll probably love Motor City Pizza Co frozen pizza. I've seen it at Walmart and Costco. It's the same style of pizza and probably about as greasy.
-
I fully agree that they changed something and it doesn't taste the same. Pizza Hut was my favorite growing up and I have had it probably 4 or 5 times in the past decade. Dominos seems to be better than I remember as kid, but not enough to become a staple in my family rotation. I'll also say that I think Little Caesars changed for the better. They make a much more respectable pie and haven't increased prices much. Even my picky, German wife likes them, probably more for the crazy bread. At the end of the day, if I'm getting pizza its usually something local or Costco if doing a larger gathering. Hard to beat the value and quality of a Costco pizza I worked at Pizza Hut in high school. A couple of years ago though, they changed the sauce, cheese and the pan in which the "pan pizza" is made. It was ok in high school, I avoid it now. If I have to do a chain, I go to Domino's, but I find that if I have that a couple weeks in a row I get sick of the taste as well. They are far and away the closest (among chains) to an authentic Neapolitan but still pretty far. I recently bought an Ooni Fyra, so I'm pretty much strictly homemade from here on out unless traveling.
-
The thin crust is quite good for what it is. The pan pizza is prepped by putting about an inch of oil in a pan and baking it. It is literally a donut with sauce and cheese on top.
-
It is sad, especially considering that we can't go to the games.
-
It's been a long time since I've had actual cable but the last time I did, the regular cheap cable package contained absolutely nothing. It was a bunch of crap and basically nothing that people get cable for. You had to go a level up for FSNWI. I'm almost positive their streaming service doesn't have FSN.
-
Legally, I believe that's accurate.
-
Sling was great because you could cut it off at any time and it was only $25. It's not included in the cheaper package anymore though, don't think it's in either Sling package but not 100% sure. I bootleg all the time, but I won't lie to myself and say it's as nice as having it paid. It's just a lot easier to sit down and watch it without any fussing.
-
I just have a hard time justifying the $50 or whatever it is to get literally one program I'm interested in seeing and can't catch every night. Hell I'd give them $15 a month for JUST the telecast of the games.
-
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you're getting Brewers baseball with Spectrum live. It's a bunch of crap like extra innings and MLB Network. I can't imagine they'd give away their golden cow with the streaming service. Those regional sports networks are the only thing keeping cable TV afloat. The rest of it's crap or can be had for peanuts.
-
Given that every service says something like this and then FSNWI disappears forever I don't think it looks too great for YouTube TV. Sucks for everyone that enjoyed it. Personally I just lose interest once it's above $10 for a service, but I'd happily pay $10/mo for that one channel. Probably stuck with crap like this until all the deals can be scrapped and MLB can act on the fact that they need to get their games back in living rooms if they want to grow the sport. A combination of a 20-pk, radio, At-Bat, and occasional PW sharing will suffice for me.
-
Not sure cracking down on sharing will cost them any significant number of subscribers. I give out my Disney and Netflix passwords and if they cracked down I would just say sorry guys, they're mine now. There haven't been enough people using the services for them to be gung ho about cracking down on sharing logins. Three years into Mandolorian and three other Star Wars shows + Marvel and continued original movies etc., people will be hooked on the services to the point that they'll just pay for it. Netflix is still very much in its infancy when it comes to original programming. They were previously nowhere near where they need to be from a loyalty perspective to start locking accounts. I don't know who suggested you should care about irritating streaming companies? The point is sharing logins is not going to be a long term savings strategy. The instant that paying for video protection is financially beneficial it will be widespread with these services. Netflix essentially said this publicly within the last few years. That it just wasn't a concern and they wanted to get their content out there. Last fall they changed their tune and want it to stop. So I think it's coming sooner than later. https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/netflix-isnt-cool-with-password-sharing-anymore-why-piracy-is-about-to-be-next-battle-in-streaming-war.html
-
Netflix's lowest tier is one screen, that's it. That's one of the reasons they "don't care" about the password sharing, because in many instances that person has a higher-tier account and that negates some of the loss. Disney+ has four screens on its lowest tier. All these places know this is going on. I was reading about this earlier due to this thread and the tech is already there to stop it. There is an entire company doing this, Synamedia, and there are already algorithms that are incredibly precise at determining irregular behavior from an account. It can already detect when a user is on vacation with high accuracy. Of course, using a service like this will come at a cost to the Netflixes of the world so there is some reluctance to jump ship. You can bank on that happening when they've figured out the losses are significant.
-
FSN GO/TNT whatever work fine with a Spectrum login, today. I watched the Bucks game last night that way. I was just saying that I would not expect that train to choo choo endlessly. They may not care now, but they will as older traditional customers disappear and they are relying on a younger demographic. They're not just going to eternally let people get 6 subscriptions while one guy pays.
-
I'm specifically referring to password sharing. There is no way that companies like Disney and Comcast are going to let that slide much longer. It'll get more complicated than just typing in a password. I'm surprised to hear that still works at all as they vowed to be "cracking down" in 2017 per a quick Google search. Edit: They already have some mechanisms in place but have refrained from using them to this point: “We have created some technology that’s in the backend that we will use to understand behavior,” Paull said. “And when we see behavior that doesn’t make sense, we have mechanisms that we’ve put in place that will deal with it.” Article goes on to say they red flag accounts with suspicious activity/unusually long list of devices accessing content. I password share on some stuff too, just saying that monopolies are not just going to continue hemorrhaging millions as their base customer gets younger and does this sort of thing regularly.
-
Weren't they cracking down on that like 3 years ago to the point of notifying users who were doing it?
-
IDK, I have multiple friends that use my Fox Sports login to watch Brewers/Bucks. One tries my charter stuff on everything where you need to show that you have cable and it works. The funniest part is that I actually got rid of Charter in November and the logins still work. I have internet another way now and am still able to login to the Charter app and watch everything for free. I'm going to keep riding it for free as long as I can just to spite them, even though I hate not just having normal cable. 3 months so far. My dad has Spectrum and when I try to use it, what I described happens. I can watch Hallmark Channel but it will not allow me to connect to Spectrum live without being on their network, i.e., in their house.
-
A couple conglomerates own all of the content. This is how they get away with their insane fees, by forcing a provider to take 25 channels instead of the only two anyone watches. The real answer lies with the Internet - people can and will just stop watching TV, but the Internet is oxygen at this point and LOTS of places have one choice.
-
Always been my argument as well. Seems like a lot of screwing around for minimal savings. Now the equation changes if you get extremely cheap internet, do illegal things and/or don't want very many channels to watch. That's the rub for a lot of people. You end up paying for a bunch of channels you never use which is why I've never taken the leap with YouTube TV or Sling or any of the "live" TV options. And it's also possible that the increased competition from the streaming services has forced the cable companies to improve things on their end. This is exactly what happened. I got Sling because it was "only" $25 a month and I figured I'd cancel when the Brewers were out of contention or season was over. The rest of it was just a bunch of crap I never wanted. Regular plain old YouTube is filled with millions of hours of old docs, webcasts and original material that can be very interesting. If I could literally just order FSNWI I probably would pay $10 for just that one channel as it would provide about 80% of my use of a TV. Once the price is above $10 I lose interest completely.
-
I had cable back in the day but always split the bill with a roommate, it was bundled with our internet. When I got married I had it for a year and never have had it since. It's just filler. I watch nothing on ESPN and just wouldn't be sitting down to watch local sports every night anyway. I don't miss it. It's one of those things that you have to get used to not having, but then you don't want it again. There's tremendous variety so it gets hard to compare apples and oranges. I pay $70/mo for Internet, two cell lines, Disney+ and Netflix. Internet is $19, weird service that most people probably don't have access to but it works, two lines at Republic Wireless are $20 each with a BYOD plan.That's all I need. Internet for work and streaming but nothing hardcore. Too many shows that I want to watch but can't. When I had cable I'd browse for something so I could watch TV. Now it's only when I want to watch it or I find something else to do. I probably save a lot more than most would but it's not always but straight savings. It can be about trimming excess and being productive with your time.
