ultranaut

That is the downside, FZROX is only available to Fidelity customers. There's also a potential risk it won't track total market performance as well as predicted because one of the ways they keep the expense ratio at zero is by only purchasing what is supposed to be an equivalent subset of the total market to keep their transaction costs down. I don't remember the specifics but I think they leave out lots of tiny companies and its not a significant risk because they couldn't actually move the needle one way or the other.

If you have an account with Fidelity, FZROX should be a better choice than VTI. Unless you enjoy investing or want to really get into it, either do a target date fund for the easiest and lowest risk, or a total market fund like VTI, or an S&P500 fund like VOO. You really don't need to overcomplicate beyond that, except to potentially start buying bonds when you are nearing retirement if you didn't choose a target date fund.

What specifically are you invested in? That chart doesn't look right if you are investing as you describe.

When restaurants have booth seating where you can feel the person in the booth behind you moving around in their seat.

I get cold easier and my clothes keep getting looser but that's about it. I don't count calories so I'm not sure when exactly I'm running a deficit or for how long but I have been steadily losing weight. I was a few pounds into the overweight range when I decided to start losing weight, now I'm down at least 14% from my peak and basically right in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height. About a year ago I started eating less, and started only eating until I didn't feel hungry, and significantly reduced my alcohol intake. Its about the laziest diet possible because I still eat whatever whenever and still drink regularly but the net result is I'm running a calorie deficit often enough to lose a fair amount of weight. It doesn't really feel like anything, or it feels about the same as running a calorie surplus. I imagine if I was running a larger or more sustained deficit it might be unpleasant and feel like starving but a minor irregular deficit isn't something I really notice.

He believes diversity is a bad thing so getting diversified is not something he wants happening to him. I don't think it goes beyond that, just a dumb fascist being a dumb fascist.

You didn't answer my question, and thinking through your answer should make it clear why applying that tactic is the dumbest choice you can make under the circumstances if you genuinely believe Trump winning is the worse outcome.

That logic doesn't work because the official duties of the VP are both narrow and distinct from the President. Its not obvious that legal powers confer from the President to the Vice President in any way except under predefined circumstances. The VP would need to wait until those circumstances occurred, for example if the President was sedated for a medical procedure, and then do the official act while they have the actual powers of the Presidency behind them.

There's not a yes or no answer to that question except in a theoretical abstraction. In reality politics is complicated, messy, and frequently dumb. The only real answer is it depends on the policy, the demographics and voting habits of the bloc, the politician and parties involved, and myriad more factors beyond these obvious ones. I dispute that allowing Trump to win by not voting for Harris will accomplish anything useful or positive, no one will be taught the lesson you purport to be teaching if that happens.

The things you believe do not make sense or map to actual reality.

What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?

If there's only two possible outcomes between three choices, and one of those choices is clearly the worst outcome and another one of them is clearly not a possible outcome, which choice would you make and why?

Your logic doesn't make sense. We only get one or the other of them, that is the inevitable outcome of the election. It is going to be either Trump or Harris. You just said Trump is worse than Harris in a previous comment. If you legitimately believe Trump is worse then it is basic harm reduction to vote for the person who is capable of defeating him. Choosing to not vote or to vote third party reduces the chances of Harris winning and increases the chances of Trump winning. Either you actually do want Trump to win and are trolling or your ethics and values are incoherent.

I'm not everyone but it looks like you are feeding a troll to me. They are obviously being ridiculous, if they aren't a troll you are effectively punching a kid in the face for being dumb by continuing to engage with them. Nothing good is being accomplished for anyone involved either way.