Wasn't this the house owned by the douchebag director in Mulholland Drive?
Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
21–30 of 70 posts
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#22Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#23Good for him. I also enjoy the fact that he's bought something which I can imagine would be relatively straightforward to recreate in the game which got him there. People saying it's a "tasteless piece of real estate" seem misguided. It's a lovely building, architecturally. I don't think the furnishings do it justice (it's all too plush and nouveau) but it's a really lovely design.
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#24Good for him. I also enjoy the fact that he's bought something which I can imagine would be relatively straightforward to recreate in the game which got him there. People saying it's a "tasteless piece of real estate" seem misguided. It's a lovely building, architecturally. I don't think the furnishings do it justice (it's all too plush and nouveau) but it's a really lovely design.
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#25Good for him. I also enjoy the fact that he's bought something which I can imagine would be relatively straightforward to recreate in the game which got him there. People saying it's a "tasteless piece of real estate" seem misguided. It's a lovely building, architecturally. I don't think the furnishings do it justice (it's all too plush and nouveau) but it's a really lovely design.
Already done: http://www.geek.com/games/notchs-70-million-beverly-hills-ma...
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#26Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#27Façade seems kind of blocky. ;)
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#28Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If all were equal the top 0.1% would be doing exactly as well as everyone else.
Then how why would they be the "top" 0.1%? If everyone is equal, there is no "top".
Re: Notch Buys Beverly Hills Mansion
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. If all were equal the top 0.1% would be doing exactly as well as everyone else.
Then how why would they be the "top" 0.1%? If everyone is equal, there is no "top".
Start from:
If all were almost equal the top 0.1% would be doing more or less as well as everyone else.
Then take the limit for almost -> exactly