Handyman hal net worth

How would one answer this question? Let's try together! There is one important thing in both Stellaris and our own reality, which is the same: The sun, our g-type main sequence star.
We can therefore indirectly compare energy credits and dollars, using the energy output of the sun.
So, how much energy is the sun producing in a month? Its output is 3.86 x 10²⁶ watts^[1] . Watts are equal to joules per second. A month has 60 x 60 x 24 x 30.42 = 2,628 x 10⁶ seconds (assuming an average amount of days in a month). Multiplying the two we arrive at 1.0107288 x 10³³ joule. Joule itself as a unit isn't terribly helpful yet, so we convert it to kWh, which you may already be familiar with from your energy bill. Dividing the energy value by 3.6 x 10⁶ and we arrive at: 2.80758 x 10²⁶ kWh.
We do have to assume that the dates depicted in Stellaris (which always starts at 2200-01-01) are the same lunar years that we experience. But this should be a fair assumption, considering that Sol is in the game, and the default empire is seemingly meant to be our own civilization.
You may already have heard about the concept of a Dyson Sphere. If you've played with Utopia, or frequent this subreddit, that is. It is a construct around a star (mostly encompassing it, though not exclusively ^{[a] [b] [c] [d] [e]} ), which harvests its full energy. In the game this is equivalent to 4000 energy credits.
It is at this point that we have to concede an inaccuracy: Obviously not all stars have the same luminosity, i.e. the same energy output. However, in the game, all stars are equal to one another, when measured through the Dyson Sphere scale (and we have no other possible scale). Mods do sometimes try to fix this issue (often relying on vague internal "planet" sizes), but as a result we cannot be certain about the value, as we can ascertain neither the actual mass nor luminosity of any star ingame.
As a result, we should not be putting too much effort into calculating an approximate energy price for our own reality either. It would be wasted effort, especially since we also do not know the effiency of future photovoltaic cells. Let it suffice to say, that energy prices through the last few hundred years (when evaluating coal and other energy sources apart from electricity too) have varied greatly, and as a result of inflation, continued to increase. Any estimation will be a rough guess at best.
We will therefore use the average energy price in the US through the years 2020 to 2023, i.e. $0.17 per 1kWh^[2] . If we'd use european data, it'd be 0.24€ per 1kWh^[3] instead (prices vary due to local production). Both values are using consumer pricing for households.
Continuing on, we can now assume 4000 energy credits are (very roughly due to the necessary assumptions) equivalent to

• $4.772886 x 10²⁵
• or 6.738192 x 10²⁵ € respectively, each at the current valuation

Consequently, a single energy credit is worth:

• $11 932 215 000 000 000 000 000
• 16 845 480 000 000 000 000 000 €

A truly unimaginable amount of wealth, compressed into a single digit.
Considering that in 2022 the world economy was recorded as $101 600 000 000 000 (breaking through 100 trillion dollars for the first time), a dyson sphere is worth as much economic power as 5 637 266 900 000 times (5.6372669 x 10¹² ) our own human civilization encompasses. Maybe I should say 'any "early-space age" pre-FTL civilization'?
To put this into perspective (and end on a funny note): Any galactic civilization, with even just a single Dyson Sphere, would care about us approximately two times less than Bill Gates (with a net worth of $128 000 000 000^[4] ) would about picking up a single penny ($0.01). And we know he said he wouldn't do it.
Economically speaking, we would never be contacted by an alien species, before it isn't as easy for them as waving their hand, or "value" in reaching us increases otherwise. Henceforth, I don't think anybody should be scared of (or excited about) aliens contacting us in our lifetime, sorry! (Though actually, with FTL travel existing, it might be that easy after all.)
Also: Upkeep for leaders is way too high. At this point governors aren't just ruling planets, they own them! And being a Clerk doesn't sound so bad anymore... Excuse me for a second, I need to invent time travel.

I hear many on here talk about burnout and how they can avoid it.
As far as I can see, there are only two ways.
The first way is to simply set time limits on how long you work. In the EU there is law called the Working Time Directive. It's essentially a way to stop employees overworking.
Overworking can badly damage your health, so you simply shouldn't do it, especially for long periods of time.
So, if you're working on a project you need to discipline yourself to working 9-5 or whatever.
But sometimes you may need to go all-in to get a project off the ground. That's ok as long as you don't go all-in for too long. Also, the potential results need to be worth it.
For example, if you work an 80-hour week for a year and end up with $1 million, it may be worth it for you.
But if you're working 80-hour weeks just to earn an average wage then there's simply no point.
The second way to avoid burnout is to drop projects or put them off until later.
I see quite a few on here that work long hours in their main job and also long hours on a side hustle. They complain about burnout.
The only solution I see here is that you have to give up one or the other for the time being. You're simply trying to do too much.
You can have anything in life but you can't have everything.
Many on this sub seem to want to have everything right now. That rarely happens.
If you want 5 things in life and they all take working 40 hours a week for 2 years to achieve, you should just do one at a time. Do project 1 in years 1-2, project 2 in years 3-4, etc. You'll achieve a lot more than trying to work 16-hours das yo achieve everything at once.
I've been taking it easy for years. It's not for everyone, but I'm happy with small wins. Like earning $400 a month writing on Medium.
That's been my main project for almost 2 years. I'll spend the next few months on my website flipping project. Later this year I will drop both and move on to two other projects.
I've been doing this for decades. It builds wealth and extra income slowly but with some big wins. It gives me time to travel and socialise.
It's way better than trying to work 80 hours a week, losing all your friends and becoming depressed, which I see many complaining about.
So, take it easy. Don't too much. Have a proper think about what you're tryin to achieve and whether it's worth it.

Buster Welch's Net Worth– Biography, Income, Cars, Age

Erika Alexander's Net Worth– Biography, Income, Cars, Age

I'm curious what others are doing as far as cash and cash equivalents as a percentage of net worth. I have about 7% of my net worth in cash and cash equivalents which is right in the generally recommended range but somehow it feels like not enough. I'm curious if others find themselves feeling the same way or if that's just me. feels like 11-12% would feel about right but my advisor and close friends cringe at that figure. Though I do have one friend that has that figure up at like 25% but he's one of those economic doomsday people.
Most likely I'll be increasing that number to at least 9 or 10% regardless, mostly I'm just curious if I'm the only one that feels like keeping a higher percentage than is generally recommended or if I'm an outlier.

I lost my entire net worth trying to day trade options in the stock market. I’m at ground 0. I refuse to give up on the markets though. I am switching strategies however. I am going to start long-term investing. Any advice?