Here are a few things I like about those games:

• "on rails" progression - no loot, any new gear is discovered as part of the story (e.g. OG Zelda -> blue ring -> red ring); minimal loot
• hard, but fair, boss fights
• dungeon feel - less emphasis on puzzles, more on working room to room to find items to access the boss
• minimal emphasis on stats, so grinding shouldn't be a thing of playing normally
• forced usage of gadgets/types of weapons

Examples of games that qualify:

• most Zelda titles - A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword; not BotW or TotK
• Ys games - esp. Ys 1 and Ys Origin; later titles lose focus IMO (more gear, more leveling, etc)
• Okami - boss fights aren't exactly what I'm looking for, but the rest of the game is close

Examples that don't qualify:

• Diablo and similar - far too much loot and skill trees
• Dark Souls - it's close, but the variety of equipment is a bit much; I want less choice, not more,; but DS is pretty close
• Assassin's Creed - "boss fights" are usually lame, too much focus on upgrades, stealth isn't really my thing

Games on the fence:

• Tunic - I've played an hour or so and it was tons of fun
• Titan Souls - finished and loved it, just worried mentioning it will take people off track since it doesn't have any progression, dungeons, etc
• Furi - again, loved it, but like Titan Souls, it's a bit of an exception

Basically, I want a game that forces me to learn and adapt using the limited tools the game provides. Here are things I absolutely want to avoid:

• feeling of being OP - causes me to drop most (a)RPGs
• lots of choices - if I get an upgrade, it should be strictly an upgrade (e.g. more damage)
• loot - I hate managing inventories (exception: switching gadgets to solve puzzles/different enemy types) and buying/selling stuff; I want that progression managed for me

Basically, I shouldn't have to think outside solving puzzles and fighting bosses.

Indie games are preferred.

Platforms:

• PC (or emulator) - preferred, esp if I can use my Steam Deck
• Switch
• Wii

We're behind on our Python release updates, so I was reviewing older Python releases and found this gem at the bottom of the 3.12 notes:

They have no need of our help

So do not tell me

These haggard faces could belong to you or me

Should life have dealt a different hand

We need to see them for who they really are

Chancers and scroungers

Layabouts and loungers

With bombs up their sleeves

Cut-throats and thieves

They are not

Welcome here

We should make them

Go back to where they came from

They cannot

Share our food

Share our homes

Share our countries

Instead let us

Build a wall to keep them out

It is not okay to say

These are people just like us

A place should only belong to those who are born there

Do not be so stupid to think that

The world can be looked at another way

(now read from bottom to top)

Refugees, by Brian Bilston

I didn't notice this until the other post about them potentially deprecating YaST (at least putting in on maintenance mode). I figured we could use a thread to discuss other changes coming in Leap 16.

I thought this was an interesting video and I think it does a good job explaining at least part of why Trump won. Here's the original paper if you're interested.

I think the economy was a major factor in deciding this election, but obviously there are a lot of other factors to consider, such as the DNC not having a primary, Biden having a poor approval rating, and concerns around China and Russia, among a host of others. However, this seems to do a fantastic job explaining the results as well.

What do you think? Do you think public perception of the economy and political party influence on the economy was a significant factor in this election? Do you think that indicates a decent likelihood of either an economic correction or at least reduced returns at some point in Trump's presidency?

With Thanksgiving in the US right around the corner, I found this article about gratitude from a FI perspective. This is from a few years ago, but the message is evergreen.

Link is to the Bogleheads forum post where someone posted a link back in August. Before now, you had to call in to request the change, and it could take a few days, but now it's online and allegedly is done the next day.

I don't know when they added this, but I think it was sometime this year because I remember considering it last EOY (that's when I usually rebalance).

Here is a direct link, or you can get there on the website: Transact > Buy & Sell > Convert Vanguard mutual funds to ETFs. You can select either a number of shares or a percent of the total position.

As to why you may want to do this, here are a few reasons:

• converting shares classes isn't a taxable event (but you can't go ETF -> mutual fund)
• ETFs have a slighly lower ER (0.01-0.02% in most cases, so not huge)
• easier if you want to ACATS transfer shares to a different brokerage
• if you have a mix of ETFs and mutual funds, rebalancing between ETFs is easier, so moving a portion of your mutual funds to ETFs may be worthwhile

Have you taken advantage of Vanguard's mutual fund -> ETF conversion? Do you think you'll use this new online tool?

Link is to an older podcast episode, and The Money Guy YouTube channel occasionally talks about FINE instead of FIRE.

Here's the definitions of each:

• FINE - Financial Independence Next Endeavor
• FIRE - Financial Independence Retire Early

Basically, FINE focuses on what you plan to do after achieving financial independence, whereas FIRE tends to focus on cessation of working. I always called it FI (leave off the retirement part), but I suppose FINE works.

Anyway, just wondering what everyone else is planning to do once they hit Financial Independence, whether that's retirement or starting something new. I'll leave mine in the comments.

This is a link to a spreadsheet to help determine which funds to place into taxable vs tax-advantaged space.

Here is a link to the Bogleheads wiki about tax-efficient fund placement:

If all else is equal, international funds have a small tax advantage over US funds, because they are eligible for the foreign tax credit.

TL;DR:

• put international funds in taxable and file for the foreign tax credit each year
• the total difference is like 0.1-0.2%, so optimizing fees may be more impactful than going through this exercise

This wasn't good enough for me, especially as I'm looking into applying a small-cap tilt to my portfolio and really like optimizing things, so I went digging for more information.

Foreign Tax Credit

When you own stocks or otherwise make money in another country, that other country may charge taxes, and the IRS will also charge taxes on any dividends you receive, regardless of source. This ends up in double taxation, because you're being taxed on your dividends by both the US and the foreign country.

To eliminate the double taxation, you can file form 1116 to recoup the foreign taxes by getting a credit (or deduction, but that's rarely better). This Bogleheads wiki doc has more information if you want it.

For many funds (e.g. VXUS), the FTC ends up being something like 0.25%, so if it's in a tax-advantaged account, you'd end up with a 0.25% tax drag on your investments due to foreign taxes you can't recoup.

Tax-efficiency

When deciding where to place funds, you generally want fewer dividends and capital gains in your taxable brokerage accounts and to put the higher dividend-yielding assets in your tax-advantaged accounts. And if you have to have capital gains, you want to make sure your taxable account has mostly qualified capital gains so they're taxed at the long-term capital gains rate instead of the (in most cases) higher income tax rate.

However, the foreign tax credit changes things, since you can only get it if your investments are in a taxable brokerage account. There are cases where you'd prefer a higher total dividend in your taxable account provided the tax credit more than makes up for the difference in total taxes.

Worked example w/ VTI and VXUS

For example, let's say you have equivalent amounts of VXUS and VTI. VXUS has 3.34% total dividend yield whereas VTI has 1.66% (both as-of 2021). So you'd want VXUS in tax advantaged and VTI in taxable, right? Wrong. The total taxes for both are:

• VXUS - 0.56%, of which 0.26% is recoverable foreign taxes, for a net of 0.30%
• VTI - 0.32%

Here are two scenarios (assuming you have no state income tax, are in the 22% bracket w/ 15% LTCG):

• VTI in taxable - VXUS pays 0.26% in foreign taxes, for a total tax bill of 0.26% (0.26% + 0.26) / 2
• VXUS in taxable - 0.30% net taxes (0.56% - 0.26%), for a total tax bill of 0.15% (0.30% / 2)

So in this case, holding VXUS in taxable saves about 0.11% in total taxes paid.

Added notes

I added some Avantis funds (known for value funds) on here that are interesting:

• AVUV - US small-cap value fund
• AVDV - developed markets small-cap value fund
• AVES - emerging markets value fund

So please, make a copy and mess around with your own figures. You can add some funds as well if you like, just fill in the bolded sections in the "funds" tab and it should work for you.

I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes as well if you feel so inclined.

Anyway, do you bother with adjust fund placement?

I generally don't like to make political posts, but this one has an interesting correlation to some of the culture around FI, which is things we can and can't control (i.e. this older post about circle of control, which echoes The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People).

So even if you're not in the US or just aren't interested anymore in the election (i.e. I already voted last week), there's still some interesting points about what the head of government can and can't do, as well as what the rest of government has and doesn't have control over.

Stocks are all over the place right now, and there's a lot of concern about what might happen after the results are announced. I hope this article can bring a little peace since a lot of what the market and news orgs are worried about aren't really things the President has direct control over, and the rest of government will have a delayed impact.

It's certainly an important decision and there will be significant impacts, but sometimes it helps to take a step back and look past the excitement in the news cycle.

I found the graph at 10:55 to be especially interesting because it shows how someone with around the median income ($65k) can make it to the lower upper class by retirement through some discipline (10% saved per year).

As a quick TL;DW, here are the median incomes, net worth, and percent of population for each class:

• lower - $34k income, $3.4k net worth (many are negative) - 25%
• middle
  • lower - $44k income, $71k net worth - 20%
  • middle - $81k income, $159k net worth - 20%
  • upper - $117k income, $307k net worth - 20%
• upper
  • lower - $189k income, $747k net worth - 10%
  • upper - $378k income, $2.5M net worth - 5%

Some questions to spark discussion:

• Do you agree with his breakdown of the economic classes? Why or why not?
• What strategies do you think someone in each category should take to improve their situation?
• If you don't mind sharing, what class do you think you're in, and does the breakdown match your experience?

I watched this video a couple weeks ago, and while it has nothing to do with FI, I thought it was quite interesting how he divides the economic classes. TL;DW:

• lower class ($34k income, $3400 net worth) - ~25% of population - truly struggle with emergencies and flirt w/ the federal poverty line; net worth is pretty much nothing (often negative!) due to student debt
• middle class - three categories (lower, middle, upper)
  • lower ($44k income, $71k net worth) - ~20% population - identify more with middle-middle class and tend to get into more debt than necessary by trying to keep up with the Joneses, but could be financially stable w/ some discipline
  • middle ($81k income, $159k net worth) - ~20% - financially stable, most of assets are in home
  • upper ($117k income, $307k net worth) - ~20% - passive income and compound interest supplement income; some live paycheck-to-paycheck due to lifestyle inflation (i.e. keep up w/ next group), but some can do really well with investments
• upper class - two categories (lower and upper)
  • lower ($189k income, $747k net worth) - ~10% - specialized professions; most people can get into the lower upper class with discipline (10% savings rate on $65k salary => $787k investments by age 50); little pressure from everyday expenses
  • upper ($378k income, $2.5M net worth) - ~5% - some college grads working as employees, but a lot of these are business owners

At each level, I see two types of people:

• savers - have enough cash to weather emergencies, tend to have upward mobility
• everyone else - tend to stay in that economic class, and may regress in retirement; routinely keep up with the Joneses and stay in debt

I personally have been in the middle to upper middle class for most of my career (started in lower middle class, but that quickly changed), and I'm shooting for lower-upper class to upper-upper class in early retirement. I didn't get any inheritance and don't expect any, and I haven't been particularly lucky with my investments (for every major win, I can show an equal major mistake), I've just been very frugal. Some details:

• car(s) - single car for most of my married life; currently have two at 16 and 17 years old; I do most of my own maintenance
• house - bought in mid-late 20s and haven't moved
• savings rate - was 45%, but it's now 35-40%
• current income - upper-middle class range, might get to lower-upper class if I stick with my career; about half my career was middle-middle class
• FI target - something like $50-60k spending/year, or $1.5-2M; I plan to be FI around mid-40s, and I intend to keep earning income after FI, but the nature of my work will change

Anyway, I really enjoyed this video, and I think it's interesting to compare myself to the various breakdowns, as well as forward to people who argue that the main thing keeping them down is income (despite being middle-middle class or above).

What do you think? Do you agree with the breakdown? What do you think the "minimum" income range is for someone who'd like to pursue FI?

This interview mostly goes over social policy, so I hope there's a follow-up with fiscal policy as well.

Here's an AI-generated transcript, which has some mistakes but hopefully is helpful. I tried copying it here, but it was too long.

Some interesting tidbits I liked:

• Liz challenged Chase on gender affirming care - his response was "no to surgery before 18, yes to medication if parents and doctors agree"
• open borders - wants an "Ellis Island"-style system where you register and then get to work, while still maintaining a strong police presence to keep out criminals
• courting those on the right of the LP - wants to work together on common causes, but will disagree on social issues
• vaccine mandates - no mandates from the government, but private businesses absolutely can; he thinks businesses requiring masks/vaccines is stupid because it limits customers

The whole discussion was pretty interesting, and I think it's interesting that Liz Wolfe came out as more conservative than Zach (apparently, Zach rarely discusses personal opinions).

So far I'm pretty happy with Chase as the candidate because:

• he's pretty well-spoken - reminds me a bit of Gary Johnson with less "aloof"-ness
• he appears confident and seems to do a good job justifying his positions on core libertarian principles
• very different from both Trump and Biden, so he should contrast well
• going after young voters - he's young, and he's highlighting issues that young people seem to care about, so I'm hopeful that'll resonate with young voters

I certainly disagree with him on some issues, but I think he'll be a good voice for the party. I would like to see more discussion on economic policy though.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Are you excited for a Chase Oliver campaign, or do you think the Libertarian Party should have made a different choice?