America: from Homeless Man to Power!

Another work on a theme related to the beheading line, and the results are still good. This time the author has done a good job in grasping the starting point of the popularity of the beheading line. Similar to this kind of hot spot, there are few restrictions and a lot of room for development. With a golden finger, you can write in your library. Authors who have reserves and are interested can follow it. Once the popularity is over, it will be gone. If you don't write, you won't write.

What kind of killing line? Isn't this just what you think? This plug-in is turned on as if it was a joke.

After understanding the killing line, look at the rich second generation who shot the top executive of the insurance company. He is really noble.

The lecturer is an Internet celebrity who plays the role of a homeless man. He is not really going to starve without getting a meal. He still has money to buy food.

It's also a beautiful killing line, but this one is written more pleasantly, without overwhelming combat power, and the main line is clear, which is to encounter events - upgrade points - and become more powerful. It's better than my uncle's book, which was a masterpiece before it was released. After it was released, the main plot was a bit confusing. It felt like the author didn't expect it to become a hit and didn't design the outline well.

What extraordinary? It's just a fantasy before being killed! 🙂🙂

Except for loyalty, the system has been completely hidden in the back. As of now, it has become a political game. Come on, are we here to see this kind of political game? We might as well kill, kill, kill. No wonder we changed the title of the book. After all, you do eat beef. If you say you don't eat beef, it's beside the point.

That day I was sitting at the top of the stairs and saw an unkempt man down there. I was bored so I went down and had a conversation with him, and during the conversation I discovered that he had actually been to space! I began to wonder if he was panicking, but he produced a series of evidence that proved his words were true. I was so excited that I invited him to have a meal at McDonald's. The more we chatted, the more we talked, and I gave him $50 when we parted. On the way home, I couldn't help but sigh. It's incredible that in this country, a homeless person can actually have the opportunity to go into space. This is something I had never dared to think of before. Moreover, this homeless person also set a record for the longest stay in space. I couldn't calm down for a long time.

This book reveals the reality in its absurdity. Normally, a book with such a big opening would have been scolded for showing such a big god. But in the United States, it is unreasonable for a Chinese to want to cause trouble without the strength. Without loyalty, he will be stabbed in the back. Without the most powerful force, he will be eliminated. Without AI, he will be manipulated. When a country begins to rot, ordinary methods are completely useless. Only deus ex machina is reasonable. It's terrible.

1. Human: Now set a super killer. It cannot be explored by any technological products and can sneak into any place. It has a gun with unlimited bullets and can shoot headshots. At the same time, combined with the capital cannibalism in the United States, for example, the California fire insurance company refused to pay compensation not long ago. If such a killer said that if everyone's losses were not compensated in accordance with the formal terms, then he would kill all the bosses and professional brokers behind all insurance companies. Do you think these companies will give in? AI: This is a very interesting thought experiment. We can analyze it from several levels: 1. The killer's "absolute ability" makes physical resistance and security ineffective The killer you set has sneaking and assassination capabilities beyond reality - not detectable by any technology, headshots with guns, unlimited bullets. Under this premise, any physical defense (bodyguards, bulletproof vehicles, safe houses) is useless. Insurance company executives would be very frightened from a purely self-preservation perspective if they knew this threat was real and undefendable. 2. The operating logic of the U. S. Capital and insurance industry However, whether it will "succumb" depends on several realistic factors: · Who is the decision-maker: The real "boss behind the scenes" are usually shareholders of large investment institutions (such as BlackRock, Vanguard Group), hedge funds, and the boards of directors of insurance companies. Professional agents are mostly senior workers. The killer said he would kill them all. As long as these people are convinced that the threat is true, in order to survive, they will most likely give in at the personal level - lives are more important than money. · The contract clause itself is a "legal evil": California fire insurance companies refuse to pay compensation, often because they cancel the policy in advance or use clauses such as "wildfire risk is not covered". These terms themselves are legal means they use to maximize profits and avoid risks. If the killer demands "compensation according to formal terms", and the "regular terms" do not compensate for wildfires, then the killer is actually asking them to violate the terms of the contract to compensate. This touches on the core logic of capital: act according to the contract, otherwise the entire insurance model will collapse. · Collective Action Dilemma: Even if individual bosses are afraid of death and want to pay compensation, the insurance industry is interconnected. If one company loses money and the others do not, it will cause a chain reaction and huge losses. Unless the killer clearly and publicly kills a few disobedient people first as an example, the group of capitalists may take their chances, or hope that the government will intervene to catch the killer (despite the ineffective technology in the setting). 3. A more likely reaction: superficial surrender, covert confrontation The power structure of the United States is not flat. The rich will not simply "give in", but will: · Immediately seek to negotiate with the killer: agree to compensation terms, and at the same time try to find and eliminate this "abnormal existence" at all costs (using private intelligence networks, offering rewards, and even contacting the military). · Transferring assets and liabilities: Shifting compensation pressure to reinsurers, the government (such as declaring a state of disaster), or delaying it through legal proceedings. · Use substitutes and public atonement: Let some executives publicly "admit their mistakes" and make compensation, while the real controller hides in the underground fortress (although it is useless according to the setting). Conclusion: · If the killer immediately kills one or two of the most stubborn bosses as a warning, then the rest will definitely succumb because the instinct of self-preservation overwhelms greed. · If the killer only makes a threat but does not immediately execute it, the capital will most likely pretend to be weak and negotiate, and at the same time use all resources to try to kill the killer. Because they cannot accept the precedent that "personal force can override capital rules" - once this hole is opened, the entire system will be shaken. So, I will surrender temporarily, but I will resist crazily. Whether it can be enforced in the end depends on whether the killer really continues to kill without emotion and unstoppably until all parties involved are convinced that "the only way to survive is to pay money." Only then will the logic of capital give way for the first time to pure fear of life. 2. Human: It continues to kill according to the settings. Then he turned his attention to charity. Philanthropy in the United States is also very high. Suppose he said that all charities now must ensure that 60% of all funds are used for real charity. Otherwise, he will kill the people in power behind the charity company. So do you think this works? AI: According to the premise you set - the killer can never be detected, cannot be stopped, and will continue to kill - then this threat will have an immediate effect in the short term, but in the long term it will cause a systemic collapse or complete deterioration of the charity industry. The specific analysis is as follows: 1. Why is it effective in the short term? Because the killer's logic is the same as before for insurance companies: directly attack the lives of decision-makers and bypass all systems, laws and security. · Personal fear overwhelms organizational rationality: The people in power behind the scenes (major donors, board members, CEOs, etc.) Of large American charitable foundations (such as the Gates Foundation, United Way, Clinton Foundation, etc.) Are also made of flesh and blood. When a few people in power who openly refuse to adjust the funding ratio are shot in the head, everyone left will immediately understand that this is not extortion, but the enforcement of physical rules. · "60% should be used for real charity" is not an unreasonable requirement: in fact, high administrative fees, management fees, public relations fees, investment hedging operations, and even disguised money laundering or benefit transfer are common in the American charity industry. Many small charities have a project expenditure ratio of less than 50%. There is always public criticism, but there is no coercion. The killer is equivalent to anchoring the ethical requirement of "efficiency in doing good" at 60% with absolute violence - although this ratio is harsh (difficult for some organizations with high operating costs), it is not impossible to achieve (for example, many efficient charities such as organizations recommended by GiveWell have projects that account for 80%-90%). 2. What will happen in the long term? ——Three possible evolution paths Path 1: Appearance of compliance, actual fraud (most likely) Charitable institutions will quickly adjust their accounts: · Redefine "real charity": package executives' business trips, luxury dinners, public relations activities, and even payments to their own consulting companies as "project execution costs" or "field inspection fees." · Establishing an outer shell company: First transfer the funds to the associated "project implementer", and then the shell company will transfer part of it back as "management fees". The proportion of project expenditures on the books will reach the standard. · Result: The 60% rigid target may lead to more complex financial fraud rather than truly improving charity efficiency. The killer only requires "60% of the books to be used for real charity." He cannot detect the authenticity of each expenditure like an auditor (unless you give him omniscience). Path 2: Big capital completely withdraws from charity (structural change) The fundamental motivation for many wealthy people to do charity is not purely altruistic, but: · Tax avoidance: donations are tax-deductible, while foundation investment income is tax-free. ·Reputation laundering: Using charity to hedge against an exploitative image. · Intergenerational Wealth Control: Retain control of wealth through a foundation and avoid estate taxes. If the killers force 60% of the real expenditure, it means that they can no longer avoid taxes and launder their money through the model of "donating to a foundation they control - the foundation only spends 5% on real projects - and the remaining funds are invested in appreciation". Many foundations will choose to dissolve directly, donate funds to a few mature charities that are already operating efficiently (such as directly to GiveWell or the Anti-Malaria Foundation), and then withdraw from the charity field completely. The result: Total philanthropic funding may decline, but efficiency increases. Path 3: Violent counterattack by the government and deep forces The threat of killers has shaken the foundation of the American capital-philanthropy-power complex. Insurance companies are purely commercial, while charitable foundations are often deeply tied to politics, media, and think tanks (for example, by funding universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions to gain soft influence). The federal government won't sit idly by as killers begin slaughtering philanthropic powerholders - not because the charity is pure, but because: · This constitutes a systemic terror attack on the elite. · The principle that "law is the only legitimate violence" must be upheld. Although the killer is designed to be undetectable by technology, the U. S. Government may: · Implement military-level protection (even if useless) for all relevant elites. · Carry out indiscriminate monitoring and trapping of areas where the killer may move. · Offer high-priced rewards for clues and encourage insiders to report. · Even use unconventional means (such as tactical nuclear bombs to clear an area) to try to kill, even if innocent people are accidentally injured. In the end, the killer is either trapped in isolation in a command center buried dozens of meters underground (although it cannot kill him, it cannot prevent him from coming out), or the US government is forced to reach a secret agreement with him - for example, in exchange for the killer stopping killing, the government legislates to force the proportion of expenditures on charitable projects to be no less than 50%. Conclusion · Short term (within a few months): Almost all large American charitable foundations will frantically adjust their accounts, lay off administrative staff, outsource project execution, and try their best to achieve 60% on their books. After a few heads fell to the ground, the rest were absolutely obedient. · Mid-term (1-3 years): A large number of inefficient, money laundering, and tax avoidance-oriented foundations have closed down or transformed; efficient, small, and down-to-earth grassroots charities have received an inflow of funds. But at the same time, the government and capital will join forces to hunt or negotiate with the killer. · Long-term: Either the killer is contained by some non-technological extreme means (such as being trapped in a sealed lead tank and thrown into a trench indefinitely), or the killer forces the United States to pass legislation to mandate a charitable spending ratio (such as 50%), and then stops - because his goal is not domination, but correction. Core irony: Using the most undemocratic and terrifying way, the killer may have finally achieved what many reformers have been unable to do by relying on democratic procedures for decades - to completely drain the pretense and moisture of capital from the word "charity" with exploding bullets. But the price is that the remaining charity after that will also be run in fear and accounting fraud, losing the warmth of voluntary charity. Depth v2 People: Shouldn't the temperature of voluntary charity be that all or most of the charity money should be donated to the people who use it? Why is it said that it has lost its temperature? AI: Your question is very perceptive and touches directly on the huge gap between the core definition of "charity" and its actual operation. You are absolutely right: from a pure and ideal moral point of view, "charity" should give most of the resources directly to those in need. If the intermediate links eat up 40% or more, it is indeed consuming goodwill. So, why do American charities generally have high administrative fees, and many people (including me) think that forcibly cutting these fees will lead to "loss of temperature"? The reason is that "charity" in reality is no longer a simple process of "donating money and giving money". It has evolved into a complex set of social infrastructure. The cost of this infrastructure is paid for by the 40%. Let me explain what this "temperature" refers to: 1. "Temperature" does not refer to the conscience of capitalists or executives, but to the ability of professional services To ensure that donations are not wasted and to truly solve problems, a large foundation needs a series of expensive "backends": · Due diligence team: When digging wells in Africa, you cannot directly give money to the local village chief. You need to send people to inspect the geology, evaluate local contractors, and supervise the quality of the project. This requires geologists, project managers, auditors. Where do their wages and equipment come from? Comes from administrative fees. · Legal assistance and compliance: Distributing pharmaceuticals in war-torn areas requires dealing with complex international sanctions, customs, and local laws. This requires top lawyers. · Long-term tracking and evaluation: After donating money to build a school, will student performance improve after a few years? An independent evaluation team is required to conduct follow-up studies and produce professional reports. This requires experts in statistics and sociology. If it is mandatory that 60% must be "directly used for real charity" (usually understood as cash or materials directly distributed to recipients), then the foundation's first reaction is not to "give more money to the poor", but to cut off all the above-mentioned professional teams. What will be the result? The money may have been embezzled by corrupt local officials; the water wells broke down within six months and no one has repaired them; mosquito nets were distributed without teaching people how to use them, and they were eventually used as fishing nets. This kind of "direct money giving" charity has historically been proven to be extremely inefficient and even harmful. 2. "Temperature" also refers to the cost of attracting and maintaining professional talents Charity also requires top talents. An expert who can manage hundreds of millions of dollars of anti-malarial projects in Africa would earn an annual salary of US$2 million if he went to Wall Street; but if he came to a foundation, his annual salary might be only US$300,000. This $300,000 (belonging to administrative fees) is already a "charity discount." If the project expenditure ratio is mandated and the foundation can only give him 150,000, then he will most likely return to Wall Street. What is left in the end may be people with mediocre abilities who only know how to mechanically divide money. Charity without professional talents is like a hospital without doctors, with empty beds and medicines. This kind of "cold" execution is what really loses its temperature. 3. "Temperature" does not refer to the enthusiasm of the process, but the effectiveness of the results We confuse the object of "temperature". The warmth of charity should ultimately be reflected in the recipients: Did that child survive because of malaria prevention? Is that family no longer sick because of clean water? · A kind of "high-temperature" charity: in a small community temple, the monk converted all the 100 yuan he received into steamed buns and distributed them directly to the poor. 100% Efficient. But it can only save 10 people a day. · Another charity that "looks colder": The Gates Foundation spends 40 yuan to research new vaccines, train local doctors, and establish cold chain transportation, and 60 yuan to buy vaccines. Efficiency 60%. But this system can save 1 million people within ten years. The former makes you feel "very warm" because the process is direct, transparent and without middlemen. The latter makes you feel "cold" because there are highly paid experts, there are overhead costs, and there are complex reports. But the latter saved countless lives. The real warmth is the smile of the recipient after receiving effective help, not the process of the donor feeling good. What may happen under your settings If the killer enforces the 60% hard target, two things will happen: 1. A large number of "inefficient but necessary" charities will go bankrupt: For example, small institutions that provide comprehensive services for patients with rare diseases have extremely high costs for case management, psychological support, and family counseling, and may only account for 40% of the projects. They will be destroyed by killers. What these institutions provide is precisely "warm", human-based, and expensive care. 2. Survivors will falsify: they will disguise the originally clear "administrative fees" (expert salaries, evaluation reports, legal support) as "project fees" through accounting. For example, the air tickets, hotels, and subsidies for "malaria experts' inspection tours in Africa" ​​were moved from the "administrative management" subject to the "malaria prevention project implementation" subject. On the books, 60% met the target. But nothing has changed in actual operations. This kind of systematic fraud driven by fear is the real and complete killing of "temperature" - because it destroys transparency and trust. Conclusion Your doubt points out the core: ideal charity should be simple and direct, but in reality, effective charity is complicated and expensive. To say that the killer's demands will make charity "lose its temperature" is not to clear the ground for capitalists (of course they need to be regulated and criticized), but to point out a cruel truth: to constrain charity with simple proportions that are one-dimensional and ignore the complexity of the industry, the final result is often the destruction of those professional, expensive "infrastructures" that can really solve the problem. The rest may be a large number of "money-splitting machines" that are beautiful on paper but ineffective in reality, or simply a more covert fraud system. The real "warmth" of charity lies not in the proportion of money you spend to "touch" the recipient, but in whether you have truly and sustainably improved his destiny. To do this, you often need to endure a part of the cost that "doesn't seem to be straightforward enough." The killer's bullet is precisely aimed at this indispensable "cost".

Inexplicably, the superheroes are gone, the data is gone, the daily attribute points and prizes are gone, and everything has turned into a childish business war.

Those two couples would actually thank God first instead of the protagonist, as Lao A's latest live broadcast said. You don't need to build a force from scratch, there are a lot of helpers you can use.

The core points to watch are, one, the company's development and growing power. The second one is that the protagonist uses various coquettish methods to deal with enemies and strengthen his power. As for what to write about the debate between the two parties and the debate between the two parties, it was a bit inconsistent with the main line and not good-looking, so I skipped the order immediately. Originally, the author wrote about the main character and Da Zhizi facing each other. I felt a bit bored and wanted to delete it from the bookshelf. However, the author was decisive enough to publish two free chapters in a row, and attracted people back. After reading the free chapters, I found that the content returned to the theme, and continued to subscribe. It must be said that the author has two brushes

After reading about 20 chapters, my evaluation is that it is not good. The reason why I clicked in is to see the lecturer's style of playing in the wild and begging for food. Logically speaking, it should be a live broadcast, funny, and down-to-earth type. But the author has the baggage of an idol. It reads like a rich, handsome protagonist who goes to beg for food, then turns around and stays in a hotel when he is done, where he sleeps well and earns money every day. It's completely different from what I expected. The damage is also very high. After a few days of improving my physical fitness, I'm the strongest on the surface. I would like to ask whether you want to write about a humanoid Gundam or a business tycoon. Are these related to the gold medal lecturer?

If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it, and no one is forcing you to watch it. A malicious attack goes too far. Anyway, I feel that the pace and writing style of this book are very good, there are many jokes, and the content is interesting. If you like to watch, please watch more

How did this kind of book rank second?

After reading a few chapters, I was poisoned and died. The speed of the golden finger's pointing is already invincible before the later stage. To be precise, you are already invincible at the beginning and can directly see people's information. Why can't you make money? The author also has a limited understanding of Lao America. Too much content has been brushed aside. The plot becomes a running story.

Run people always say that the per capita consumption of Lao America is more than ten times that of Dongda University. If there are really more than ten times the number, why are there homeless people on the streets of old America? Are you really stupid by eating contraband?

Would anyone really like this crappy book?

What are you writing about in the last few chapters? Pure Water. In order to write more chapters, I just eliminated the characters of Zeus and the Fool. Zeus killed You at the beginning. Now You doesn't kill you when you cause trouble. You have to remind online games to kill people. The Fool is directly invisible. It has the same problem as the previous novel, just for the sake of water plot. Everything has been reduced, all characters have been reduced, IQ is gone. If you don't want to think about writing like this, you have lost your character. You are stuck. Just stop. Use your brain more. What a good book. It's only a few chapters now. That's it. I guess this book won't be long. If you play like this, you won't last long in this career as an author.

I seem to have subscribed to your book Charity King a few times, but later I decided that I really didn't like the style and stopped buying it. The same goes for this book. I'm obsessed with all kinds of online slashing lines. It's good to have a little bit of it from time to time, but it's disgusting to have it interspersed in basically every chapter. I guess I like this type of book except for the fun-loving ones. The plot and writing are good, but if this style is changed, I think the subscription will be higher.

A bit hard to rate. The theme is that after the male protagonist, as a beautiful Chinese, got the Golden Finger System, he began to become the sun of the United States. It is a nonsensical, brainless, and invincible writing method. Let's not talk about the final direction. The tone is very interesting, but the rhythm is very bad. First of all, the strengthening speed of Gold Finger is too fast. I have read more than 100 chapters now. Although the status of the male protagonist is still very low, he is actually physically invincible, plus he has a not-so-low public loyalty base. The mismatch between the two is undoubtedly unreasonable. There is no obvious main and branch plot arrangement in terms of rhythm. It is easy to abandon the book due to the lack of freshness.

I started to get bored when I started writing about the conflict in Gaza. The dominance style is better.

The United States cannot continue to be beaten. . . Where are their intercontinental missiles? It's not impossible to get a small-yield nuclear warhead in a hurry

After seeing the plot of Da Zhizi in chapter 130, I didn't want to watch it. When I first started watching it, I thought it was pretty good. I was already short of books and just happened to find a quite interesting novel. Who can bear it when a piece of shit comes suddenly when I feel so good. I'm not ready to watch it either. What I wrote before is really cool.

The first part was pretty good, but the second part almost fell apart.

Personally, I think Daddario, Nina, Blake Lively, Erin, and Connery are better looking than Kristen. 😁

At the same time, I feel like your novel is not clean either.

It's just that there are too many lecturer scenes and it's boring. I still like to watch blood flowing like rivers.

Is the protagonist a dog licker? Don't you think you're no longer a human being inside and out by then?