#Balanced Advantage Fund

[rahulssharma]

[mutualfundssip]

Balanced Advantage Fund & Dynamic Asset Allocation Mastery Master investment strategies with Balanced Advantage Fund & Dynamic Asset Allocation. Achieve financial goals with expertise

[sanjhipoonji]

Hybrid mutual funds called Balanced Advantage Funds dynamically shift investments between debt and equity in an effort to minimise risk and maximise rewards. They balance stability and growth by adjusting to market situations. To find out more and create a future of financial independence, investors can contact us at 9810325138.

[indvesting]

NFTs in India

NFTs in India: Explore the evolving digital assets landscape with Indvesting's insights. Visit: https://www.indvesting.com/

[wealthziapp]

Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs) are financial instruments that combine insurance coverage with investment opportunities. These plans offer policyholders both life insurance protection and wealth creation through market-linked investments.

[sunnysharmaseo]

Balanced Funds versus Balanced Advantage Funds

If you are new to mutual fund investing, then hybrid funds may look confusing. However, within the category of hybrid funds there are finer classifications like Balanced Funds and Balanced Advantage Funds (BAFs). Any hybrid fund is a combination of equity, debt, and derivatives in varying proportions. The difference between Balanced Funds and Balanced Advantage Funds (BAFs) lies, not just in the mix, but also in the discretion or leeway to the fund manager, to decide and alter that mix. Therefore, the debate of balanced funds vs hybrid funds is about mix and discretion.

What are Balanced Funds?

Have you ever wondered where the SBI Balanced Fund invests in? For that, we must start with understanding the concept of balanced funds. Balanced funds mix their portfolio between equity and debt in a rather rigid proportion. For example, the mix can be between 60:40 in favour of equities to 60:40 in favour of debt. The best balanced mutual funds maintain a fair balance between equity and debt.

What are Balanced Advantage Funds?

Balanced Funds and Balanced Advantage Funds appear similar, but differ in terms of asset mix and discretion. Balanced advantage funds (a.k.a BAFs) also invest in a combination of equity and debt, but the fund manager has greater discretion. Technically, fund managers can go to 100% in debt if interest rates are expected to fall or 100% equity if valuations are too low. In practice, BAFs are never that extreme. Due to this discretion, BAFs are also called dynamic allocation funds. In the list of BAFs, when you see SBI Balanced Advantage Fund Regular Growth, it is a dynamic allocation fund with discretion. When you try to identify the best balanced advantage fund in India, you must look at risk, volatility and returns.

Comparing Balanced Funds with Balanced Advantage Funds

There are similarities and dissimilarities between Balanced Funds and Balanced Advantage Funds (BAFs). This evaluation can identify best balanced advantage funds that fit your choice.

Balanced Funds

Balanced Advantage Funds (BAFs)

Balanced Funds invest in a combination of equity and debt instruments and therefore are hybrid in nature

Balanced Advantage Funds (BAFs) also invest in a mix of equity, derivatives and debt but with greater flexibility and are also hybrid in nature

In Balanced Funds, the equity-debt allocation is predetermined to be a specific ratio.

BAFs also use debt to reduce the overall risk of equities in the portfolio. However, BAFs are more flexible in their allocation which is done at the fund manager’s discretion and a predetermined formula.

Balanced Funds are for the long haul and investors must look at a time horizon of 4-5 years, at least

 Invest in Balanced Advantage Funds with minimum of 3-5 years investment horizon. These funds adjust equity exposure based on market conditions using a predetermined formula aiming to minimize volatility in your investment.

However, they differ in asset allocation. Balanced Funds cannot go above 60% in equity or debt and cannot go below 40% in both asset classes.

BAFs are discretionary and there are no such limits. Depending on the market view and predetermined formula, the fund manager can take net equity and debt exposure to any limit.

What about tax treatment? Balanced Funds are treated as non-equity (debt) funds since the equity exposure is less than 65%.

Balanced Advantage Funds are treated as equity funds since total equity levels are always maintained above 65% by way of including allocation to equity derivatives.

The next time you come across the SBI Balanced Advantage Fund or the SBI Mutual Fund Balanced Advantage Fund; remember that it is a dynamic hybrid fund with substantial allocation discretion for the fund manager.

Who should invest in Balanced Funds?

Balanced Funds are ideal for investors who are looking at longer term returns with better managed risk. The debt component also enables steady income. Balanced Fund are a good step to onboard an investor to equity as the risk gets gradually graded higher. It is for investors looking to have a more conservative approach to long term wealth creation. In fact, Balanced Funds are the more pristine form of rule-based hybrid funds. Investors who do not want too much of fund manager volition can opt for Balanced Funds.

Who should invest in Balanced Advantage Funds?

In a BAF, the returns are based on dynamic asset allocation and these are considered ideal for first time investors or conservative investors to test the waters. Investors who are comfortable with moderate volatility in their investment portfolio and have investment horizon of 3-5 years should consider investing in this fund. The dynamic allocation feature helps in reducing the volatility.

The moral of the story is that the next time you see any talk of an SBI balanced fund (or SBI hybrid fund), know that we are talking about an amalgam of debt and equity with different mixes and different levels of fund manager discretion.

If you desire to invest in such balanced or hybrid fund with a mix of debt and equity, you can check out SBI Balanced Advantage Fund or SBI Equity Hybrid Fund and can make your choice based on your risk appetite.

Source: https://www.sbisecurities.in/blog/balanced-vs-balanced-advantage-funds

[dailyglobalupdates]

NFO Alert: All you need to know about Bajaj Finserv Balanced Advantage Fund

Bajaj Finserv Mutual Fund announced the launch of the Bajaj Finserv Balanced Advantage Fund, an open-ended dynamic asset allocation fund suitable for investors wanting to invest in equity and equity-related instruments including derivatives, and fixed-income instruments. The scheme opened for public subscription on November 24, 2023, and will close on December 08, 2023. The scheme re-opens for…

[mutualfundinvestmentonline]

Bajaj Finserv Balanced Advantage Fund NFO | Bajaj Finserv AMC

Explore the potential of Balanced Advantage Fund NFO (New Fund Offering) for strategic and balanced investment. Make informed decisions to enhance your portfolio with.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[ikkosu]

G1 prowl. I don't know where I'm going with with this. Mention of 'suggestive stuff but it's not explicit.' hrhrghrhhhrh

IT was a fine evening that night in his habsuite. As usual, the lights are turned off; room shrouded dim with the only illumination apparent is the iridescent glow from the desk lamp that tugged an ache in his optics.

He persevered, however. No matter how uncomfortable the ache pulsed. Bent over the desk, he skimmed through the expense protocols from this morning's briefings. It wasn't usually his position to handle the funds. The most he's got his hands on is managing the military expenditure, ensuring nothing is nicked during the process. But given the mech prior his employment had handled the situation indelicately, 'usually', he's now tasked with the errand to do so.

Another one of the many issues he'll have to sort through. As if being the tactician isn't enough. Not only will he have to spend weeks formulating battle plans but also play side-hustle as a financier.

Ultra Magnus expected the finished product the end of this week. Unfortunately for him, he'll give it seven days prior.

Footsteps patter in front of the door. He's too fixated on a misspelling to hear it slide open. (Is it so hard to not miss the other 'i' in Liaison?) And when his proximity sensor does register — swivelling around in surprise, the chastise lodged in his throat is cut short when a forty Cybertronians isn't in his view - but tipping his helm down is your minuscule form on the floor.

You peered back up, features twisted in solemn ire. Nose scrunched, lips down turned. Eyes distraught.

"You look..." He tried to find the word. When he couldn't he settled on something less severe he winced out. "...unhappy."

You sighed. "You have no idea."

With a slight tilt of his helm, he crouches to your level and curls out a servo. It didn't take long to waddle onto the palm, clutching the thumb to keep yourself balanced as he raises himself. You blinked when the thumb you're holding moves, pressing against your cheek then back and forth against the skin. You leaned into the touch and nuzzled the ridge.

"I was in trouble.” You spoke after a moment.

Prowl raises a brow. Oh? Trouble? You're not usually the worst ones. Worst are the twins. Along with an occasional Smokescreen and Hot rod thrown into the mix.

"That seems a little vague." He says, ploddings towards his desk.

"Hardly. It's just a little scolding I've got from ultra Magnus."

" What did you do to warrants such a transgression from the commander? Nothing too severe, I suppose?"

"That's for Wheeljack to decide. All I did was follow what the twins told me to do.

He sets you on the table, turning around to sort his datapads while you brought your legs to your chest, crossing your arms and perching your chin on top of it.

"Twins?" He frowned, tossing aside a datapad that read: Base Report #096.

"Sunstreaker? Sideswipe? The twins?" You list off. "...Don't tell me you forgot them too."

"I've got better things to remember." He tosses aside another report. Battle plans. Classified information. Blueprints.A digit points to his helm. “ Hard copies are unreliable. They're easily taken advantage of if not stored safely. That is why it is essential my processors are clear of any 'irrelevant' information."

You rolled your eyes. “Right. Red black. Yellow black. I don't see how hard it is for you to remember primary colors."

"Perceptor is also red and black."

"But you remember him."

"Only because he is my direct liaison to the Scientific district." Prowl turns halfway to you and you can see the quirk of a smile. "He's worth remembering." A pause. “And I suppose," He goes back to his desk. "You are too."

Silence. Prowl's door wings flick up straight as he fully faces you. You observed the unusual blue hue on his cheeks, though. Are those...?

"What did they tell you?" He asked, organizing the datapads

There was a pause as you observed him for a moment.

"Promise me you won't laugh."

He shoots you a look. "I don't laugh.”

"You do."

"Only when it's necessary."

"That's a 'somtime."

"A probability close to half."

You groaned. "Its just some stupid joke they've managed to rook me into. Tell me, what the hell does frag mean?"

His door wings flick up, just as his lips does. " Why, its an equivalent to your, ah, well — equivalent to the curse word—"

" Fuck?" You finish for him since it was obvious Prowl would take a lifetime to enunciate that word.

"How...tragic."

"Oh, please—"

"I'm going to assume they've tricked you into uttering it beside the commander?"

You crawled towaeds him, "They said it means rest! Can you believe that? Everytime I needed a break they told me to use 'frag' since it practically means the same! Except Cybertronian? Can you imagine the humiliation when I realized ice been going around telling bots that I need a frag? To everyone?!"

He scoops you up into his servos,and you noticed the surface lightly shook. You look up and is greeted by the crescent crease of his optics.

"Laugh and I'll pour water on your datapads."

He starts moving again, still unable to hide his sounds of amusement. " I admit that's a little—"

" It's terrible!"

"Yes, very terrible." Prowl sits on the edge of the berth, adjusting his position as he leans back, you perched on his chassis. " You have my condolences."

" Now, everyone thinks I'm some player with a desire to bag all bots in this base!" You hid your face into your palms. The memories of this morning resurfaces and the burn sears into a scalding heat. "This is— they're not even my type.....i don't even— ugh. Take me, now."

"Not unless you've taken the lives of the twins first."

You look up. Prowl is looking down softly.

"Oh, I will." You crawl up, tucking yourself under his chin. "Tommorow. They're never going to escape."

"An apple for an eye?" His voice rumbles as he spoke. A digit curls out and rubs your back.

"A paint job for a paint job." You leaned close into the cables of his neck.

"Sunstreaker adores his finish..." He mumbled.

"That's why I'll give it a little mishap."

[erc20tokengenerator]

ERC20 Token Generator Introduction

Have you ever thought about creating your own cryptocurrency? With an ERC20 Token Generator , you can make it happen effortlessly. Let’s explore how to dive into the blockchain universe.

Understanding ERC20 Tokens

ERC20 tokens are a type of digital asset on the Ethereum blockchain, following a set standard for compatibility and functionality.

Advantages of ERC20 Tokens:

Consistency: Adheres to a universal protocol.

Broad Adoption: Recognized across various Ethereum-based platforms.

Robust Support: Strong community and resources available.

How to Use an ERC20 Token Generator

Creating tokens is simplified with these tools. Here’s how it works:

Specify Token Details:

Decide on a name and symbol.

Determine the total number of tokens.

Utilize the Generator:

Access an online generator.

Enter your token information.

Deploy Your Token:

Review your settings.

Launch on the Ethereum network.

Features of ERC20 Tokens

ERC20 tokens provide essential features that enhance their usability:

Standard Operations: Includes transferring and checking balances.

Smart Contract Compatibility: Integrates easily with smart contracts.

Security Assurance: Utilizes Ethereum's strong blockchain security.

Reasons to Create an ERC20 Token

Why create your own token? Here are some compelling reasons:

Raise Capital: Launch an ICO for funding.

Build Engagement: Offer rewards to your community.

Drive Innovation: Explore new blockchain applications.

Challenges to Consider

Despite the simplicity, some challenges exist:

Knowledge Requirement: Some blockchain understanding is needed.

Security Concerns: Vulnerabilities can be exploited if not addressed.

Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring adherence to legal standards is vital.

Best Practices for Token Creation

Follow these tips to ensure a successful token launch:

Code Audits: Regularly check for security issues.

Community Involvement: Seek feedback and make necessary adjustments.

Stay Updated: Keep abreast of blockchain trends and legal requirements.

Conclusion

The ERC20 Token Generator empowers you to create and innovate within the crypto space. Whether you're a developer or entrepreneur, it's a powerful tool for blockchain engagement.

Final Thoughts

Embarking on token creation offers a unique opportunity to explore the digital economy and its possibilities.

FAQs

1. What is the purpose of an ERC20 Token Generator?

It’s a tool to create custom tokens on the Ethereum blockchain easily.

2. Do I need technical skills to create a token?

A basic understanding of blockchain helps, but many tools are user-friendly.

3. Can I trade my ERC20 tokens?

Yes, you can trade them on crypto exchanges or directly with users.

4. What costs are involved in token creation?

Creating tokens incurs gas fees on the Ethereum network.

5. How can I ensure my token’s security?

Perform regular audits and follow best practices for security.

Source : https://www.altcoinator.com/

[kingshovelbug]

Hii what is your best advice to younger adults trying to make it independently and make a living? In art, savings or anything you think of. Thank you in advance!

dont be too hard on yourself. its tough out there right now in regards to like everything regardless of what old people say. also this is going to be a lot so im slapping a read more on here

⭐️ first thing id recommend for anyone is to start figuring out a budget. figure out how much youre making monthly. keep all your food receipts for a month or two to see what youre spending on food. find out what youre paying for thats necessary like utilities and whats not

the goal for a budget (or at least mine) is to find a good balance of earning vs spending. im paying off my credit card right now because i ran through all my savings after we had to move last year but my goal used to be to save 1/4 of what i earned after bills and putting money into an emergency fund (usually an emergency fund is 3 months worth of expenses). but it depends on how much you can comfortably put away. if you can put more away do it. but if you never spend money and deprive yourself of joy youre going to burn yourself out regardless of what your job is

⭐️ if youre not already buy store brand for as much shit as you can. if its an ingredient i promise as someone who cooks and bakes you probably wont notice the difference. if its an actual snack it depends. again both from a money perspective and to boycott pro-isreal companies we get a lot of snacks from aldis and theyre awesome. i dont miss anything from mars, oreos etc when i have my chocolate coconut wafers

⭐️ if you have any subscriptions and you need to get rid of something you can probably cancel them. for *most* things theres some kind of free alternative. but again just like with a budget. there are going to be some subscriptions that make your life easier and while youd save money without them it would lead to extra work and burning out. ex willow has kofi gold because it has really cool extra features that help with running the shop. but for streaming services? im going to be so honest. both to save money and with how cheeky streaming companies (in a bad way) have been getting… you can find whatever you want to watch online for free

if you need to use anything from the microsoft office suite, but youre not required by youre job to specifically use microsoft, libreoffice is a free alternative that i actually like better. its what i use to help willow run their shop and its free

for art programs. if you still have photoshop switch. not just for money reasons. adobe is getting bold with what they can claim as their content and use from what people produce in their program. the switch isnt the easiest but there are a bunch of alternatives. some free some like csp offer one time licenses which are so much better than subscriptions. will has spent almost $2k on photoshop and after effects from using it as long as they have. when csp is $50 and they like csp better anyways. i also know of krita and fire alpaca which are free

⭐️ also theres stuff about being an adult that i thought you had to pay for but you dont? like for car insurance i went through an independent insurance agent and they found me a cheaper plan than i could find myself. i didnt pay the guy. they get a cut from the insurance company for finding them another customer. some banks or credit cards offer financial advising sessions to users. its boring but if you can get a copy of your health insurance see if they have any free shit on there thats available for you. my brother gets free doctor finding? like i can call them, tell them what specialist he needs and instead of me calling around to find one that can take him, they connect me with someone. my work offers 3 free therapy sessions (better than nothing) and free food that i take advantage of

⭐️ i think one of the biggest things that makes an impact for us is researching before buying stuff. sounds like a no brainer but you dont just want to find the cheapest deal. you want to find the best bargain, the best bang for your buck. whats the best quality thing you can get that you can also afford? itll prevent your from having to replace stuff all the time and by extension spending more than you need to. we have nonstick pots and pans that are scratched and starting to peel (which apparently can cause cancer??) that were cheap because of being on sale. now after looking into what makes quality cookware i know i should of just slowly bought stainless steel

⭐️ last big one. credit cards. unfortunately we need them so find one with a low apr and that offers decent cash back. use it up to like 20% of your limit and pay it off every month. focus on using it on things that will get you cash back so you can essentially get free money

im sure i could ramble more but this is already super long

[sanjhipoonji]

Balanced Advantage Funds are hybrid mutual funds that give investors a balance between growth potential and risk management by dynamically adjusting their debt and equity exposure based on market conditions. Contact us at 9810325138 if you want more information about investing and building a debt-free future.

[almacambiondaughterofsaleos]

Stella And Stolas Should Been Divorced Or Were In The Middle Of One When Stolas Slept With Blitzo

To make Stolas seem less of an asshole who has no guilt for cheating, have him be a recent divorcee or someone in the middle of divorcing. Have it so he's been stressed with getting divorced from a wife he was never attracted or got along with when Blitzo comes back into his life. He would be delight that his childhood friend is back and has come to see him. And they actually were childhood friends who had a deeper connection, but separated as teens when it was deemed he had outgrown Blitzo and need to move on with marrying Stella. He was beginning to catch feelings for Blitzo as a teen but it remain dormant after he left but came back when Blitzo showed up again. And Blitzo comes back to offer a deal with him to help fund a business with his grimoire which Stolas is reluctant at first to support until Blitzo seduces him into agreeing and everything goes from there.

During one meeting when they were having their tryst, Stella catches them having their business partners with benefits relationship as she's dropping Octavia off. This would incur so many questions and saying thank goodness she's divorcing/divorced him because she couldn't be seen with a husband who is sleeping with an imp. Meanwhile, Octavia is still confused about everything and is shocked to see her dad having already moved on from her mom quick. This time she's having mixed feelings about her dad's new relationship after going through a turbulent divorce with her parents. I do think in this au Octavia would still be going through emotional problems but it won't be solely Stolas' fault. And Stolas will learn how to balance his daughter getting through his and getting used to Blitzo since this time they didn't have an affair that broke up the family.

The problem of him sleeping with an imp would still get Stella mad and get second hand embarrassment. But she keeps it a secret because she doesn't want to be known as the woman who had a ex-husband whose new partner was an imp. I do think we should have some focus where she's realizes her fighting is hurting her daughter and will do her best to keep her daughter from seeing anymore. She might also be searching for another partner but she thinks waiting until some calm down in the divorce when she can date again so her daughter can get through this especially since Stolas already was quick to find a new partner. Also she blackmails Stolas with the info about him sleeping with an imp to have some favors done for her in the human world. IMP does those favors or she rats him out which he agrees.

The issue of Imp and high society relationships would still be an issue. However, Stolas would be more nicer and doesn't coerce Blitzo into a forced arrangement. Blitzo willing sleeps with Stolas to gain favor but also both development slow genuine feelings as they revitalize their relationship. Blitzo would know more about the divorce and has the bystander that's rough thing. He wouldn't think much of Stella if he had ever really encountered her as a kid. Stella wouldn't be one dimensional but it's obvious that both she and Stolas never got along and even if he wasn't gay they weren't comptable. And in contrast show how from the beginning Blitzo and Stolas were more compatible.

Also the person who puts a hit on Stolas won't be Stella but she's a red herring but it would be another member of the Goetia who is embarrassed by Stolas sleeping with an imp who he lent the grimoire to. Andrealphus would be the culprit and as it turns out as much as Stella doesn't like Stolas she still knows her daughter loves her father and doesn't want to break her heart if he's dead. Also I think she would have told Andrealphus and told him to keep it a secret because she wants to keep face and blackmail Stolas into giving into her demands. However, Andrealphus being a opportunistic bastard wants to see him dead to his own advantage and maybe steal his spot.

[redpenship]

Hi! I loved your response on the question about whether or not Sonic is okay with being misidentified in terms of his species. I wanted to do an ask too! Might be a bit dark though. Do you think GUN would ever try to capture and use Sonic and/or experiment on him to capitalize on his speed, stamina, and power? I imagine they’d want to be the #1 world power, and although Shadow can utilize Chaos energy, no one is as powerful as Sonic in the lore. If he WERE captured, how do you think the world would react? And finally, how do you think Eggman would react?

Hi! There are a few questions in here, so let me break them up:

Q1: Do you think GUN would ever try to capture and use Sonic and/or experiment on him to capitalize on his speed, stamina, and power?

A: Since there doesn't seem to be any history of militaries kidnapping powered individuals in the series to weaponize their powers (iirc), GUN would need to assess whether such an action is worth running the risk of entering a security dilemma with other states. A security dilemma is basically the theory behind arms races, in which a country bolstering its own security leads another to view it as a potential threat and then bolster its own security in response. So, Country A captures one superpowered Mobian. Country B says "oh shit, I don't have any superpowered Mobians to defend myself against their superpowered Mobians!" and then captures two Mobians so it can maintain a comparative advantage. Country A then kidnaps another Mobian to regain its advantage. And so forth. GUN would need to decide if it's willing to kidnap more people after already kidnapping Sonic.

Now, not all superpowered Mobians are created equal. Sonic is much more powerful than Tails, and I think it's fair to say that he's capable of beating Knuckles or even Blaze in a fight when it really comes down to it. That doesn't mean he's going to guarantee victory every time. If we run on the assumption that power is found in a state's ability to retaliate to an attack, so really, its second strike capability, then even a military wielding Sonic or Sonic's level of power still wouldn't be very interested in flexing him against someone with the equivalent of Knuckles. Really big bombs are scary, but normal big bombs are scary, too. I think most other states would be able to find Mobians powerful enough to deter against Sonic-powered military assaults.

However, they could most likely get away with using Sonic for non-combat purposes. As we saw in Unleashed, it's very possible to simply drain Sonic of his power (although he was Super at the time) and use it to power weaponry. This weaponry could be very advanced, and while it still risks a security dilemma, I imagine it would be much easier for GUN to restrict access to its weapons technology than it would be for GUN to stop other militaries from kidnapping Mobians. They can also fuck around with sanctions, trade restrictions, and other means to reduce the ability of enemy states to properly develop the technology necessary to wield Mobian power. Using Sonic as a living battery to power machines would be the most practical use of his abilities.

Q2: If Sonic WERE captured, how do you think the world would react?

A: The world would very much not like it. Other states would need to assess what Sonic's capture means for their military and respond accordingly. His friends would probably try to break him out, and I think if they or the Restoration (assuming they're willing to go to bat for Sonic) made enough waves in the process they would get the attention of other states as potential actors to be used for asymmetric balancing. For example, if Mazuri is worried about a weaponized Sonic, they might provide support to the Restoration (or Sonic's friends in general) since they're trying to free Sonic. This is the same thought process when governments fund rebels/militias in different countries. You scratch my back, I scratch yours!

From here, it would largely depend on what they're using him for. I've already kind of explained that in my answer to the first question so I'll continue on from here!

Q3: How do you think Eggman would react?

A: Believe it or not, I've written a fanfic about this! I've always really liked looking at how the Eggman Empire fits into the world at large. I think I'll approach this from a post-Forces angle since that's where the timeline stands currently.

I believe Ian Flynn said something about Eggman "putting GUN in their place" during Forces, so let's assume that he embarrassed them by attacking their military bases and using hypersonic (ha!) missiles against their aircraft carriers in the sea. He took over 99% of the planet, so this presumably happened to everyone else, which means that GUN isn't necessarily at a disadvantage when compared to other militaries. Everyone got fucked and they're all only starting to re-establish themselves now.

This means that everyone is going to be gunning for Eggman. They may have ignored him in the past a bit because he was easy to beat, but now he's proven that he can outsmart Sonic and do immense damage if he really applies himself. That's going to scare everyone very much. That kind of security risk cannot be tolerated, so they will want to destroy him and all of his resources. Eggman is presumably smart enough to realize this.

Once GUN has their hands on Sonic, he will need to react immediately. Sonic is the reason he loses every time he tries to do anything. (This is also why I generally believe that it's in GUN's best interest to let Sonic be, since he takes care of Eggman for them at no cost). They will certainly use him against the Eggman Empire. It would be stupid for them not to.

If I go at this from the perspective of harsh offensive realism, his best move here would be to figure out where they're holding Sonic and simply destroy it with Sonic as a sad, but necessary casualty. However, Eggman clearly isn't about that, so his next best move would be to utilize his forces against GUN to free Sonic and even protect him until he's safe.

This is for a pretty simple reason: it's better to have Sonic as his enemy than GUN. Sonic might stop him most of the time, but he doesn't kill him when he does. Eggman has lost enough family members to GUN to understand that they don't offer the same mercy.

Anyways, I'm glad you liked my answer to the other question! Thank you for sending another one, I love this kind of stuff.

Have a great day <3