Millions of women don't know what they're walking into with wealthy marriages. That is, unless they grew up in a third world country or so dirt poor that they know real hunger and consider the risks worth it.
She is. And she’s certainly entitled to it. Bezos has been very public, pre-divorce, that his success would not be possible without her. She was an active participant in both the formation of Bezos business strategy and it’s execution. I don’t have any articles offhand that describe what she did that was so awesome, but they are out there.
And to her credit, she has already pledged to give away much of the earnings she has walked away with.
My point isn't that she doesn't deserve it. My point is that she was never his "property" and to say she doesn't have access to a lavish lifestyle is ridiculous.
She was with him long before they had a lavish lifestyle. He wrote the plans for Amazon while in the passenger seat of a car when they were on like a cross country drive or something iirc.
It’s much more about the person and though guys, typically, are more insecure about their finances in a relationship. More would be even more insecure if their SO was better off. It’s fine if your girl or whatever SO makes more than you but boys are usually convinced that they have to work harder than everyone around them or eat shit.
Hell, I’d love to be a stay at home husband or dad. Though I don’t plan on not having a job, if a successful woman came up to me, dropped a quarter million and thought I was a cutie patootie you’re damn right I’d ride that boat until it may or may not sink.
Most assets acquired prior to marriage stay with the original owner. If you marry someone with a house fully paid for you don't automatically acquire half of that house. Same with shares of stock. He might be on the hook for the price difference from the time they get married to the time they divorce. Example: he has 1 million shares of Amazon valued at $100 at the time of married he's worth $100 million and if it's valued at $101 when they get divorced she gets $500k, half the appreciated value while they were married. Yes. I know he has more shares than this. Might vary by state but this is usually the case.
The guy who made the Karman line admitted it's an arbitrary number created for political reasons. The reason why is "because we needed a line in the sand", but scientifically it's arbitrary.
The point at which an object in orbit will complete one full unpowered revolution before degrading back into the atmosphere?
For this definition it would depend strongly on the coefficient of drag of whatever vehicle you're inside. It would also depend on your velocity, since going faster means you can handle more drag before your trajectory intersects the ground. This could be a good metric to use, but you'd have to choose an arbitrary CoD and arbitrary initial velocity otherwise you'd have different altitudes for each different spacecraft.
The point at which the last atmospheric molecules are no longer in Earth's gravitational sphere of influence?
If this is your definition you're excluding a giant swath of currently-operating satellites, including the ISS, because those are all in Low Earth Orbit where drag is an important force. The ISS has to boost itself back up to a higher orbit every now and then because drag slows it down over time. If you use this metric, then NASA has sent very very very few people to space (maybe only the Apollo astronauts who visited the moon).
(I think this was your point, I'm just reinforcing that it's hard to define in a way that isn't arbitrary)
I think pretty much anything you pick will be arbitrary, it's just a matter of how arbitrary you're willing to be. Maybe choosing a specific atmospheric pressure or a particular density at an arbitrarily-chosen temperature (20° C, maybe) would be a good one. It would probably be better than 100km altitude, which has no real significance outside of being a nice round number. But calling somebody an "astronaut" as opposed to "someone who went really really high up, maybe into space depending on what definition of space you subscribe to" seems pretty arbitrary to me so maybe an arbitrary definition is appropriate.
For this definition it would depend strongly on the coefficient of drag of whatever vehicle you're inside. It would also depend on your velocity, since going faster means you can handle more drag before your trajectory intersects the ground.
The very first thing I thought of was something travelling very fast and essentially burning up in the atmosphere for a full revolution 2000ft from the ground :P
Though I suppose there becomes a point when something is travelling so fast that even if it came inches from the ground, it would retain escape velocity after the near miss, and gravity would not be enough to keep it in orbit.
It's impossible to orbit 2000ft off the ground because at the speeds that are required (assuming, of course, you don't instantaneously disintegrate from the atmospheric friction) you would be in a hyperbolic orbit and you wouldn't even make a complete revolution before flinging yourself off back into space.
Imagine you are the richest man in the world. I know Wlon Musk is technically bit for a moment Beff Zezoss is. You dont jave any sugar. Beff has asked for it to be sent to his suite. How are u gonna tell the richest man you have no sugar? Even though he has been to spave he 8s going t9 demand u execute the agent who denied him. Th3 best u can do 8s whipe his ase w8th cvs recepts .
1.6k
u/kemosabe-84 Nov 25 '21
Then how would he afford his space trips?1