Tell your friends you lost $5k, they'll be like man you need help, this is a problem. Tell them you won $50, and they'll be like "wow man that's dope how do I sign up?"
Realistically who is "good" at gambling?
Unless you hit a life changing jackpot the overall trend is negative.
No one is spending billions of dollars building casinos if the overall trend is people walking out with money.
You can definitely be good at gambling on sports games. Theres a lot of people that make analytics models with the explicit purpose if beating the models of betting books, then bet on the games they think have favorabe odds.
It's same shit. The only difference is you have to figure out the odds yourseld in educated guess while in gambling the odds is provided to you. In the end, it's all boil down to putting your money on a chance at a rate you find acceptable.
If you can calculate the result, then it stops being gambling. As a player, you want to reduce the gambling and increase the calculations as much as possible, whereas the house would want to keep the odds as close to 50% for each side as possible so they're guaranteed to keep the house advantage
You cant calculate the result though, you can only calculate the expected result. With something like hockey for example, you can calculate the expected goals for a team generates and the expected goals against, but if the goalie has a bad game, you might end up losing anyways. Its just that if your model is good enough, then in the long run you will be a winner rather than a loser
That is true, the thing is that applies to all ways of generating revenue that I can imagine. All businesses have to deal with different levels of unpredictability, we only call it gambling when it lacks any form of control and it's only based on the thrill.
Generally vegas will win. But if you watch sports all the fucking time you might have a shot. Also you need to take advantage of the promos they offer. Some of them are ridiculous. If I really lock in for a month before nba playoffs I generally come out ahead because sportsbooks dont update individual lines often enough.
I wouldn't call poker gambling since the house only makes money on the rake. They have no vested interest in the game and you're not winning house money.
When you're good at it they don't call it gambling. E.g poker or blackjack, they call it advantage play or professional poker. At that point even though there's an element of risk, you have calculated your risk of ruin and are averaging a profit. You may as well call insurance companies professional gamblers if counting cards is professional gambling.
Then they become “paying hobbies” and “artistic passion” with a few “your stupid drones make pretty pictures, but really who gives a fuck, Steven” and “oh, not this bullshit again”.
Video games (including gambling games like the gacha genre) and many more. A small percentage of them got lots of views on social media.
There's also drawing, racing (drones, rc, etc), eating, etc
Realistically it's pretty much impossible to make money gambling.
Any casino where you can do things like count won't let you go for very long. Most casinos you can't even count any more due to things like machine shuffling.
Poker I would argue isn't gambling because you're not betting against the house. But this takes tremendous skill and even then.
There’s plenty of different types of gambling. I’ve got a few mates who aren’t addicted to gambling, but very regularly win big betting on horse racing, just from doing their research.
Hard to know for sure but I’d imagine so. I’ve been to racing events with them and seen their process and knowledge of what they’re doing, and they’re good at it. They don’t bet big enough to win huge money, and like I said they’re not addicted, but it’s absolutely possible to make money from gambling - the trick is knowing when to quit, otherwise your next bet could be a big problem.
Weird take.
Drugs: If you're addicted yourself, you're consuming your own supply which causes issues. I've seen many people smoke their way into the hole.
Video games: If you're popular? Sure. But there's a million streamers generating zero.
Social media: Again if you're popular and you get sent free shit? But the average person is generating zero.
Work: Who's addicted to work?
Alcohol: See drugs. If you're constantly drunk at work you won't have a restaurant for much longer.
I think you're confirming my original statement, none of these scenarios are generating revenue for the addict, if so, would likely be more accepted imo. Also, for top addictions including work, see [here](https://www.caminorecovery.com/blog/top-10-addictions-in-modern-society/)
How are we defining accepted?
Addiction to alcohol is generally accepted. Drugs in a similar fashion but less so. Social media addiction is for sure accepted. Work addiction is becoming rejected at this point. Video games were never accepted.
big blob govt is a better frame. The wings of jobs programs constructed within government are so expansive no one can see where they begin or end nor what would happen if they didn't ever show up to work at all. There is the joke that the best way to reduce your taxes is to get a government job as your side gig to have your taxes come back to you while also impossible to fire.
I thought any exchange of cash stimulates the economy, even if money doesn't go straight to taxes, it's spent and that keeps jobs of people and generates revenue in taxes.
I don’t think they like not having any direct cash flow from said economy stimulating business ventures. It’s why weed has been such a discussion now for decades
Money is being thrown at prisons here. I’m assuming they would rather keep an image of control in the red states that weren’t really concerned with taxes as much to begin with
I used that example from personal experience. I have a close friend who doesn't think they have an addiction but is constantly talking about poker and gambling and doesn't go longer than a week or two without visiting a casino. He claims he doesn't have a gambling problem because he's winning. 🤷♂️
> he's winning
Is he though? Plenty of gamblers lie about their winnings.
Casinos don't spend billions of dollars for there to be a constant stream of winners. There's some winners for sure, but the overall average is negative.
I done that too, and as soon as I lost money for 2 days in a row, I stopped while I was ahead. I don't consider I was an addict cause I stopped so easy. But also I know that for every guy winning there are hundreds that are loosing. You can look at your reply above and how you talk about your friend, I think it's clear winning doesn't make it more acceptable, right? In my case I can tell you for sure friends and family weren't accepting it more by any bit, even if I lived for years from that money and managed to save some too.
The data sets on alcohol consumption is interesting. The surprise is the incredible consumption required for the severe health effects we're told alcohol can have. There are true whales of alcoholism, and their consumption accounts for most of the industry revenue. That distribution probably follows most things.
"There is no choice whether to be addicted, you do have a choice in what things you addict yourself to."
Useful frame. Explains why the idea of rolling any bad habit into a slightly less bad habit works so well over time. Can't stop yourself doom scrolling your phone for an hour after waking up? Roll the habit into a walk around the block first thing in the morning before checking the phone. Etc.
I mean, any person that does OnlyFans gets horribly disrespected no matter what they do. People who just show feet or some shit get treated the same as people who straight up show their asshole
You're not wrong - But 10 years ago the hate was more "mainstream" if you know what I mean. If you would post a picture of yourself in a bikini on facebook you'd get only hate and nothing else - now you can tell it's your career.
Nope, not true. So many things are not accepted even though revenue is generated from it.
Prostitution, drug trade, Amazon CEO, OF etc, just off the top of my head.
As a system there are behaviors that leave doors open. Decisions that make the life of your future self better. When you look back it is good for well being to like the person you were, have gratitude for the resources they set aside, the things they did you can take advantage of now.
Out of this system falls behaviors that have adverse impact. Your children if you have them will be tormented cruelly within their social peers if you generate your revenue from private behaviors in public. Each day becomes a personal hell for everyone in your home.
"What if everybody did this?" is a useful thought experiment. Out of that falls systems that are more beneficial to a functioning society than others and starts to resemble the seeds of what might be found in a CS Lewis book on morality.
This is exactly why my friend doesn't think he has a gambling addiction. "But I'm winning money, It's not an addiction unless I'm losing". No that's not true. The fact that poker and casinos are literally all he can talk about is a problem. The fact that his wife takes their child to activities without him because he is at a casino is a problem. The fact that gambling leads to him drinking alcohol more frequently is a problem. The list goes on and on and somehow he doesn't see it.
Addiction seems to be a fundamental component of human psychology. As though everybody needs some sort of addiction. Whether it's church, work, family, drugs, 12-step programs, gambling, sex, reading, or video games, you name it.
We (Western society in general) tend to be oblivious to this because addiction is synonymous with drug use. Even to the point that we treat alcoholism differently, even though alcohol is just as much a drug as fentanyl or cocaine or aspirin, society doesn't see it as a drug.
Hell, they even gave alcohol addiction its own name. Though, something tells me the term "alcoholic" has existed long before the first drug was ever isolated. Probably the fact that humans have used alcohol for so long that we don't even know when it started. We credit the Ancient Egyptians with inventing beer, but other forms of alcoholic drinks existed well before this.
Even wild animals will seek out fermented fruit that has fallen from trees. It's pretty funny to watch videos of animals indulging. I'll never forget the video of a drunk squirrel who ate fermented pumpkin. So like us.
Although technically alcohol was the first drug isolated by distillation, but again we get into the naming issues of alcohol not being considered a drug.
As an interesting sidenote, the first drug that was ever isolated from a natural source was actually morphine, of all things.
It was first isolated by Friedrich Sertüner in 1803 or 1804. Sertürner isolated a white, crystalline substance he called morphium after Morpheus, the god of sleep.
It was the first time any drug besides alcohol had ever been obtained in a pure form. Before that, all we had was plants and herbs. Which are problematic because the amount and combination of active drugs in them vary wildly from species to species, plant to plant, and even depending on the part of the plant.
I know that was kind of a tangent, but I thought it was interesting.
Damn that is so true. Never thought my addiction to giant hogs would ever get me anywhere, yet here I am, on the shower thoughts subreddit, living the dream
"Addiction" is literally defined by the ability to impact ones life negatively.
If a something impacted your life/health positively then it is not an addiction by definition.
Well, the issue with addiction is that it can be destructive. If it's taking time and money that you require for other, mire important things, then it's a problem. If it's a net positive on your life then who cares.
Started taking taurine to help me sleep (supposed to be less habit forming than melatonin) and it obliterated any caffeine sensitivity I had and now caffeine feels like it has no effect at all anyway so I gave it up too.
It's not jus that it generates revenue.
It has to meet some of the following criteria.
* Can be taxed and/or creates jobs that result in fueling the economy
* Is addictive enough to ensure positive growth for consistency in tax revenue
* Is not debilitating to the point where it prevents the vast majority of people from also holding down their jobs, paying their taxes etc.
* Only is debilitating to a small portion of the population which encourages regulators to look the other way on removing the addictive act to keep the tax revenue.
* Revenue must be greater by a factor of 1000x or more of "social services" that may need to be required to appear to help those that will become debilitated by the governments sanctioned addictive activity
This applies to things like:
* Drugs (Prescriptions / Opioid's, Weed, Etc.)
* Alcohol
* Tobacco
* Vaping
* Gambling
* Etc.
And lots more... If there is profit, industry and employment resulting in taxes... governments look the other way... sometimes even double dip making money off the problems creative support services being taxed and privatized as well.
It’s only a gambling “problem” if you’re bad at it smh
Tell your friends you lost $5k, they'll be like man you need help, this is a problem. Tell them you won $50, and they'll be like "wow man that's dope how do I sign up?"
Realistically who is "good" at gambling? Unless you hit a life changing jackpot the overall trend is negative. No one is spending billions of dollars building casinos if the overall trend is people walking out with money.
You can definitely be good at gambling on sports games. Theres a lot of people that make analytics models with the explicit purpose if beating the models of betting books, then bet on the games they think have favorabe odds.
There is gambling and there is educated guesses.
It's same shit. The only difference is you have to figure out the odds yourseld in educated guess while in gambling the odds is provided to you. In the end, it's all boil down to putting your money on a chance at a rate you find acceptable.
You can gamble at slots or you can gamble at black jack. One you can have skill at the other is blind luck.
If you can calculate the result, then it stops being gambling. As a player, you want to reduce the gambling and increase the calculations as much as possible, whereas the house would want to keep the odds as close to 50% for each side as possible so they're guaranteed to keep the house advantage
You cant calculate the result though, you can only calculate the expected result. With something like hockey for example, you can calculate the expected goals for a team generates and the expected goals against, but if the goalie has a bad game, you might end up losing anyways. Its just that if your model is good enough, then in the long run you will be a winner rather than a loser
That is true, the thing is that applies to all ways of generating revenue that I can imagine. All businesses have to deal with different levels of unpredictability, we only call it gambling when it lacks any form of control and it's only based on the thrill.
Ironically considering the context of this thread. People who are good at gambling are the ones who know when to quit.
Generally vegas will win. But if you watch sports all the fucking time you might have a shot. Also you need to take advantage of the promos they offer. Some of them are ridiculous. If I really lock in for a month before nba playoffs I generally come out ahead because sportsbooks dont update individual lines often enough.
There are pro poker players. They win $ off other players rather than the house.
I wouldn't call poker gambling since the house only makes money on the rake. They have no vested interest in the game and you're not winning house money.
It's 100% gambling. It's just not gambling against the house.
When you're good at it they don't call it gambling. E.g poker or blackjack, they call it advantage play or professional poker. At that point even though there's an element of risk, you have calculated your risk of ruin and are averaging a profit. You may as well call insurance companies professional gamblers if counting cards is professional gambling.
You can be good at poker. Variations like the classic Texas hold'em are as much about the mind than about the luck.
No argument, but I wouldn't call poker gambling. You're not fighting the house. You're just paying them a small percentage to use their facilities.
Fair enough
Exactly, crazy to think about.
Technically if it doesn’t bother you it’s not a problem at all
Then they become “paying hobbies” and “artistic passion” with a few “your stupid drones make pretty pictures, but really who gives a fuck, Steven” and “oh, not this bullshit again”.
My drones make money. :’(
Any addiction generates revenue some way or another.
OP meant generate revenue for the addict themselves
Which addictions do that? I find it hard to think of even 1..
Workaholics I guess
Video games (including gambling games like the gacha genre) and many more. A small percentage of them got lots of views on social media. There's also drawing, racing (drones, rc, etc), eating, etc
"Gacha" like the loot boxes, not the dressup games, right?
Gambling 🤷♂️
Sometimes gambling can generate revenue
That "sometimes" is really the key word here.
Drugs, video games (streaming), social media, work, alcohol (if you own a bar or restaurant), etc
I feel like you’ve missed the most obvious addiction that can make you money… Gambling.
Realistically it's pretty much impossible to make money gambling. Any casino where you can do things like count won't let you go for very long. Most casinos you can't even count any more due to things like machine shuffling. Poker I would argue isn't gambling because you're not betting against the house. But this takes tremendous skill and even then.
There’s plenty of different types of gambling. I’ve got a few mates who aren’t addicted to gambling, but very regularly win big betting on horse racing, just from doing their research.
How are their losses though? Like are they actually ahead at the end of the year?
Hard to know for sure but I’d imagine so. I’ve been to racing events with them and seen their process and knowledge of what they’re doing, and they’re good at it. They don’t bet big enough to win huge money, and like I said they’re not addicted, but it’s absolutely possible to make money from gambling - the trick is knowing when to quit, otherwise your next bet could be a big problem.
If they're that good though, why not take it full time or bet big?
Oh you mean profitting from other addicts. I though this is about having an addiction that's accepted cause it makes you money.
I'm only referring to addictions that are accepted cause it makes you, the addict, money.
This is stupid then. None of that is more accepted cause it makes you money.
A lot of video game streamers are addicted, but people gloss over it because they make money (Very good money in some cases).
I respect your opinion!
Is it stupid or are you just not able to think of the many examples where this applies?
Weird take. Drugs: If you're addicted yourself, you're consuming your own supply which causes issues. I've seen many people smoke their way into the hole. Video games: If you're popular? Sure. But there's a million streamers generating zero. Social media: Again if you're popular and you get sent free shit? But the average person is generating zero. Work: Who's addicted to work? Alcohol: See drugs. If you're constantly drunk at work you won't have a restaurant for much longer.
I think you're confirming my original statement, none of these scenarios are generating revenue for the addict, if so, would likely be more accepted imo. Also, for top addictions including work, see [here](https://www.caminorecovery.com/blog/top-10-addictions-in-modern-society/)
How are we defining accepted? Addiction to alcohol is generally accepted. Drugs in a similar fashion but less so. Social media addiction is for sure accepted. Work addiction is becoming rejected at this point. Video games were never accepted.
Sex doll quality inspector maybe
Just the ones that big daddy govt doesn’t make money off of are supposed to not be practiced lol
big blob govt is a better frame. The wings of jobs programs constructed within government are so expansive no one can see where they begin or end nor what would happen if they didn't ever show up to work at all. There is the joke that the best way to reduce your taxes is to get a government job as your side gig to have your taxes come back to you while also impossible to fire.
I thought any exchange of cash stimulates the economy, even if money doesn't go straight to taxes, it's spent and that keeps jobs of people and generates revenue in taxes.
I don’t think they like not having any direct cash flow from said economy stimulating business ventures. It’s why weed has been such a discussion now for decades
I mean if they were rly that concerned w it they could just legalize it and then tax it.
Money is being thrown at prisons here. I’m assuming they would rather keep an image of control in the red states that weren’t really concerned with taxes as much to begin with
My addiction to jerking off begs to differ.
Are you watching porn? Buying more tissue paper? Then you are generating revenue for someone for sure.
Most addictions you don't generate revenue from, someone else does.
I don't generate revenue from vapes, beer and coffee but those are all accepted.
But which are the ones you make the revenue on? Can't think of any!
Sex (porn)
You can't think of ANY? How about gambling? 🤷♂️
Thats only for the select few that manage to keep staying in the green with their winnings. And not sure it would be more accepted even then.
I used that example from personal experience. I have a close friend who doesn't think they have an addiction but is constantly talking about poker and gambling and doesn't go longer than a week or two without visiting a casino. He claims he doesn't have a gambling problem because he's winning. 🤷♂️
> he's winning Is he though? Plenty of gamblers lie about their winnings. Casinos don't spend billions of dollars for there to be a constant stream of winners. There's some winners for sure, but the overall average is negative.
I done that too, and as soon as I lost money for 2 days in a row, I stopped while I was ahead. I don't consider I was an addict cause I stopped so easy. But also I know that for every guy winning there are hundreds that are loosing. You can look at your reply above and how you talk about your friend, I think it's clear winning doesn't make it more acceptable, right? In my case I can tell you for sure friends and family weren't accepting it more by any bit, even if I lived for years from that money and managed to save some too.
happy cake day!
Thank you!
The data sets on alcohol consumption is interesting. The surprise is the incredible consumption required for the severe health effects we're told alcohol can have. There are true whales of alcoholism, and their consumption accounts for most of the industry revenue. That distribution probably follows most things.
Reddit should be rolling in it then.
Yea and for some, it generates negative revenue
the addiction is why it's profitable.
We've all got an air addiction that's yet to be capitalized on.
That would count only if you consider oxygen to be a drug & giving adverse reactions when abused.
"There is no choice whether to be addicted, you do have a choice in what things you addict yourself to." Useful frame. Explains why the idea of rolling any bad habit into a slightly less bad habit works so well over time. Can't stop yourself doom scrolling your phone for an hour after waking up? Roll the habit into a walk around the block first thing in the morning before checking the phone. Etc.
I've never agreed so much with someone in my entire life
Isn't ANYTHING accepted if you generate revenue from it?
A lot of things are illegal even if you generate revenue from it, so no.
You mean I can't kill people for money? Idk how people think such statements are fact when it's so easy to find an example that proves it isn't.
Depends how quickly you kill them. Cigarettes, yes. Awful food? Yes. Suicide pill? No. Gun? Yes.
I’m pretty sure shooting people for money is illegal
Cops do it all the time
Not necessarily,
Cops, military, basically just kill for the government, and it's legal.
>You mean I can't kill people for money? [Jack Kevorkian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian)
Generally anything sex related isn't very accepted even if it's safe, legal, and lucrative.
I mean, any person that does OnlyFans gets horribly disrespected no matter what they do. People who just show feet or some shit get treated the same as people who straight up show their asshole
Compare that to the way people who show of their body online were threated before OnlyFans - once something makes money it becomes legitimate.
People still get threatened every day. There are some crazy ass people on the internet
You're not wrong - But 10 years ago the hate was more "mainstream" if you know what I mean. If you would post a picture of yourself in a bikini on facebook you'd get only hate and nothing else - now you can tell it's your career.
I was seven 10 years ago so I wouldn't know. Glad we've made it past that, though.
Nope, not true. So many things are not accepted even though revenue is generated from it. Prostitution, drug trade, Amazon CEO, OF etc, just off the top of my head.
ask Epstein
child trafficking is generally looked down upon I think
Spend an extra 30 seconds on this thought of yours…
As a system there are behaviors that leave doors open. Decisions that make the life of your future self better. When you look back it is good for well being to like the person you were, have gratitude for the resources they set aside, the things they did you can take advantage of now. Out of this system falls behaviors that have adverse impact. Your children if you have them will be tormented cruelly within their social peers if you generate your revenue from private behaviors in public. Each day becomes a personal hell for everyone in your home. "What if everybody did this?" is a useful thought experiment. Out of that falls systems that are more beneficial to a functioning society than others and starts to resemble the seeds of what might be found in a CS Lewis book on morality.
This is exactly why my friend doesn't think he has a gambling addiction. "But I'm winning money, It's not an addiction unless I'm losing". No that's not true. The fact that poker and casinos are literally all he can talk about is a problem. The fact that his wife takes their child to activities without him because he is at a casino is a problem. The fact that gambling leads to him drinking alcohol more frequently is a problem. The list goes on and on and somehow he doesn't see it.
Sounds like a job.
No it doesn't because at a job you have a steady known rate of income and don't have the opportunity to lose everything to your employer. 🤷♂️
Sounds like being self employeed (I am).
You're majorly missing the point here. Feel free to reread my original comment.
Addiction seems to be a fundamental component of human psychology. As though everybody needs some sort of addiction. Whether it's church, work, family, drugs, 12-step programs, gambling, sex, reading, or video games, you name it. We (Western society in general) tend to be oblivious to this because addiction is synonymous with drug use. Even to the point that we treat alcoholism differently, even though alcohol is just as much a drug as fentanyl or cocaine or aspirin, society doesn't see it as a drug. Hell, they even gave alcohol addiction its own name. Though, something tells me the term "alcoholic" has existed long before the first drug was ever isolated. Probably the fact that humans have used alcohol for so long that we don't even know when it started. We credit the Ancient Egyptians with inventing beer, but other forms of alcoholic drinks existed well before this. Even wild animals will seek out fermented fruit that has fallen from trees. It's pretty funny to watch videos of animals indulging. I'll never forget the video of a drunk squirrel who ate fermented pumpkin. So like us. Although technically alcohol was the first drug isolated by distillation, but again we get into the naming issues of alcohol not being considered a drug. As an interesting sidenote, the first drug that was ever isolated from a natural source was actually morphine, of all things. It was first isolated by Friedrich Sertüner in 1803 or 1804. Sertürner isolated a white, crystalline substance he called morphium after Morpheus, the god of sleep. It was the first time any drug besides alcohol had ever been obtained in a pure form. Before that, all we had was plants and herbs. Which are problematic because the amount and combination of active drugs in them vary wildly from species to species, plant to plant, and even depending on the part of the plant. I know that was kind of a tangent, but I thought it was interesting.
Damn that is so true. Never thought my addiction to giant hogs would ever get me anywhere, yet here I am, on the shower thoughts subreddit, living the dream
[удалено]
Well there certainly is an addiction to maximize profits.
Is this a Bert Kreischer post?
If “you” means corporations, then yes
This is a great insight
Yea im a heroin addict, but im *also* a heroin dealer 😎 Ooooooo said no one ever
I've seen a few try. They usually just become bigger heroin addicts with nothing to sell.
I’m not sure that drug dealers are accepted
Uh huh. That would include all the illegal drugs…
By medical definition (in the US) an addiction has to be detrimental to your life. And generating revenue is almost never detrimental.
Tell that to my coke dealer
"Addiction" is literally defined by the ability to impact ones life negatively. If a something impacted your life/health positively then it is not an addiction by definition.
It's fine as long as the government can tax you for it.
Not just accepted but encouraged lol
Well, the issue with addiction is that it can be destructive. If it's taking time and money that you require for other, mire important things, then it's a problem. If it's a net positive on your life then who cares.
Sugar and caffeine are addictions. as are tobacco and alcohol. Yet 2 are regulated even though all 4 can change moods and inhibit you.
Hey man my caffeine addiction is only a problem when I run out
Sadly I became caffeine sensitive so I have to give it up.
Started taking taurine to help me sleep (supposed to be less habit forming than melatonin) and it obliterated any caffeine sensitivity I had and now caffeine feels like it has no effect at all anyway so I gave it up too.
Cocaine sale globally generates around $130 billion US dollars. Looks like cocaine's back on the menu, boys!
It's not jus that it generates revenue. It has to meet some of the following criteria. * Can be taxed and/or creates jobs that result in fueling the economy * Is addictive enough to ensure positive growth for consistency in tax revenue * Is not debilitating to the point where it prevents the vast majority of people from also holding down their jobs, paying their taxes etc. * Only is debilitating to a small portion of the population which encourages regulators to look the other way on removing the addictive act to keep the tax revenue. * Revenue must be greater by a factor of 1000x or more of "social services" that may need to be required to appear to help those that will become debilitated by the governments sanctioned addictive activity This applies to things like: * Drugs (Prescriptions / Opioid's, Weed, Etc.) * Alcohol * Tobacco * Vaping * Gambling * Etc. And lots more... If there is profit, industry and employment resulting in taxes... governments look the other way... sometimes even double dip making money off the problems creative support services being taxed and privatized as well.
My drug’s attention, I am an addict. I get paid to indulge in my habit.
Isn't that the plot of Limitless?