|
Anidav posted:My dad was a baptist and hit me and told me pokemon was the work of the devil. Finally the Anidav origin story
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Pulls me up one Sunday school "Son... Did you know Pokemon.... Stands for Pocket Monsters?!? As in DEMONS!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
https://www.theage.com.au/money/saving/would-your-children-pass-my-pocket-money-challenge-nine-in-10-don-t-20230421-p5d2dk.htmlquote:Nine out of 10 children who take my pocket money challenge – and there have been a lot of them – fail it, though it’s probably the best money lesson they will ever learn. Important talking point number 4. $10 a week equals $520 a year. $40 a month equals $480. So taking her advice, her kids lose money. And that's how YOU can be mortgage free like her - steal your kids money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 05:44
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I'm a Catholic and married an orthodox person in an orthodox church and I didn't have to do anything extra as the two churches are cool with each other I guess. Would have been nice to learn a bit about it though, it's very different to the modern Catholic church, probably more like it was pre Vatican II Not quite, they split about 900 years before Vatican II. Something about the bread, probably more about political power struggles, but I like to imagine it was mostly a fight about the bread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the old marshmallow test and how they didn't think that what it's actually testing is 'which kids believe the promises made by strange adults'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
how to make your kids hate you in 5 easy steps
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
Why do they write 9 in ten instead of 9 in 10? Is this something I would have learned in high school English?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
Konomex posted:Not quite, they split about 900 years before Vatican II. Something about the bread, probably more about political power struggles, but I like to imagine it was mostly a fight about the bread. I just mean the church interior, candles, the singing and the non vernacular service seem like old school Catholicism
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 10:25
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I'm reminded of the old marshmallow test and how they didn't think that what it's actually testing is 'which kids believe the promises made by strange adults'. Yeah pretty much. Surprise, disadvantaged children are less inclined to believe the promises of adults.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
Comstar posted:https://www.theage.com.au/money/saving/would-your-children-pass-my-pocket-money-challenge-nine-in-10-don-t-20230421-p5d2dk.html also teaching them a lesson in rent negotiation - 150 bucks a week rent? Too hard, how about I just wire you six hundred at the start of each month, deal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
I'm mortgage free (because I can't afford a house).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 12:49
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I'm reminded of the old marshmallow test and how they didn't think that what it's actually testing is 'which kids believe the promises made by strange adults'. Yeah when you control for SES you actually find no difference. Turns out being rich made those kids believe that food wasn't going to disappear and successful later in life, not some mythical self control bs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Why do they write 9 in ten instead of 9 in 10? Is this something I would have learned in high school English? its a dumb as poo poo use of a general style guide where you use 1-9 and then ten onwards and a perfect example of why following style guides to the letter isnt ideal and you learn it in fail uni journalism classes
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
But they've still managed to do it backwards. It's supposed to be one to nine in words, numbers for everything after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Wasn't expecting to see this in the SMHquote:Our love affair with property, which has driven the cost of housing to eye-watering levels and left Australians among the most indebted people in the world, is literally destroying our way of life and that of future generations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
Lachlan Murdoch dropped his defamation case against Crikey. Seemingly because they were going to bring in the evidence in the Dominion lawsuit against FoxNews. Haha suck poo poo you entitled fascist propagandist. And whilst not to cheerlead crikey.com too much, yay for them for not being bullied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 00:07
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Wasn't expecting to see this in the SMH This kinda feels like when a CEO of a major corporation donates a few mil to a charity - it doesn't really signal a major shift in editorial policy. Nine/Fairfax have been vocally against any kind of housing reform e.g. removal of negative gearing right? Having the odd "exclusive" like what they have today just comes across as pandering, given the cost of living pressures making housing feel like an unavoidable issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 00:59
|
|
|
Business is FINALLY noticing it’s hard to get Worker’s because no on wants to work anymore after doing a 2 hour commute both ways. Their solution is to allow big business to buy all the housing stock and rent it out. Presumably to their own young immigrant workforce without kids at low wages. They won’t suggest public housing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Business is FINALLY noticing it’s hard to get Worker’s because no on wants to work anymore after doing a 2 hour commute both ways. If properly regulated (it wouldn’t be) it can work. I understand in Germany relatively few people own and much of the housing stock is run by big businesses, but renters have way more rights than here. I think bigger businesses can also be more dispassionate and keen to avoid conflict and legal trouble than single property landlords who don’t know or follow the law. I’d rather have a company landlord with strong regulations than an idiot boomer with a chip on his shoulder about me living in his/her retirement nest egg. But I think it benefits from having lots of apartments/medium density housing which can be more efficiently refitted/renovated at scale. I am dubious about it being the right thing for all our stupid suburban houses. And home ownership is too entrenched culturally and within our tax system. The problem is there is both a critical immediate issue and a long term one. We need lots of medium density public housing closer into our inner cities AND tax benefits wound back AND a pension that reflects renters rather than home owners AND increased land tax to change incentives around large blocks. But that’s all a ten to twenty year project (good to get started now though.) we also need solutions now, and I can’t think of much except massive boosts to the dole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Edit: accidental double post
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Go the Singaporean Housing and Development Board route, where the government constructs, and has majority equity in your dwelling. Preferably without the dystopian monolithic towers, but I guess that's one way of spreading the government dollar further.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
Guardian AU posted:‘It’s obscene’: ATO still chasing $2bn in student debt from controversial 1990s loan scheme and in some good news: Guardian AU posted:BP facing green rebellion at annual shareholder meeting EDIT: Lol, lmao Guardian AU posted:The Albanese government remains committed to the $250bn stage-three tax cuts but cannot say whether it will lift the rate of the unemployment payment, despite its own expert committee finding it was now “a barrier to paid work”. Phew, I'm sure glad that Albo was just playing a small target strategy during the election and didn't, in fact, loving suck. hooman fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Apr 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
We all said this when he got elected, the stage 3 cuts are going to hang around their necks every Budget because they make any other policy around addressing inequality (or not addressing it) ridiculous. Say you can't afford to lift welfare? But how then can afford to spend billions on the stage 3 tax cuts? Can't afford more money for the NDIS? But then how/why Stage 3? Etc. If they were just throwing cash out at everything and everyone it might be a different story. But it's ridiculous to talk both about fiscal restraint and responding to cost of living / inequality issues while also keeping the stage 3 cuts. Witness as well the howling madness associated with Chalmer's minimal change to the super tax benefit, another source of major inequity in the budget. They might as well do both, double the dole, and just take the hits, they will not get anything done otherwise while constantly getting slammed for hypocrisy. My view is they are probably waiting for the "right time" to dump them but that won't end up arriving and they'll get voted out anyway after their second term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 07:07
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:
Cuts will happen irl before term 2 anyway (unless they do the coward pause which I think is more likely than just dumping them) and once they're in they're not getting rolled back under any circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
JBP posted:Cuts will happen irl before term 2 anyway (unless they do the coward pause which I think is more likely than just dumping them) and once they're in they're not getting rolled back under any circumstances. Yep, kind of what i meant but was unclear. They will have been in power long enough for the cuts to happen on their watch and very few other structural changes to the system of any scope, then they'll get kicked out anyway. I think they might have been hoping to build some momentum towards it (e.g. Chalmers gingerly putting an idea out periodically then retreating once he gets slapped) but the best window - immediately post election - is probably gone. The only way I can see them doing it is taking a big package of measures to the next election which axes the Stage 3 cuts (or, more likely, a proportion of them) and throws out a bunch of other goodies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 07:42
|
|
|
hooman posted:and in some good news: eh, It is disingenuous to say that part of BP's carbon reduction should be reducing product. It just means the final product will be produced by someone else (Iran, tar oil sands in Canada, etc). BP should be focused on producing oil for as few scope 3 emissions as possible for as cheap as possible, safely as possible and the consumption of oil is on us as a group to resolve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 08:40
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Yep, kind of what i meant but was unclear. They will have been in power long enough for the cuts to happen on their watch and very few other structural changes to the system of any scope, then they'll get kicked out anyway. I think they might have been hoping to build some momentum towards it (e.g. Chalmers gingerly putting an idea out periodically then retreating once he gets slapped) but the best window - immediately post election - is probably gone. The only way I can see them doing it is taking a big package of measures to the next election which axes the Stage 3 cuts (or, more likely, a proportion of them) and throws out a bunch of other goodies. I can't see the liberals reestablishing themselves in 5 years tbh but Labor love to lose so we will see. If anything the libs will get hurt more federally next go round because the demos don't lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:39
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:eh, It is disingenuous to say that part of BP's carbon reduction should be reducing product. It just means the final product will be produced by someone else (Iran, tar oil sands in Canada, etc). BP should be focused on producing oil for as few scope 3 emissions as possible for as cheap as possible, safely as possible and the consumption of oil is on us as a group to resolve. Not entirely true, as reductions in overall supply drive the global price up which further incentivises transitions towards cheaper renewables.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
JBP posted:I can't see the liberals reestablishing themselves in 5 years tbh but Labor love to lose so we will see. If anything the libs will get hurt more federally next go round because the demos don't lie. Honestly I was super burnt by Tony Abbott as I thought he was unelectable. Then I thought the same about Morrison vs Shorten, especially as Shorten had an actual policy platform of moderate but decent change. So I’m out of the projecting the future game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:eh, It is disingenuous to say that part of BP's carbon reduction should be reducing product. It just means the final product will be produced by someone else (Iran, tar oil sands in Canada, etc). BP should be focused on producing oil for as few scope 3 emissions as possible for as cheap as possible, safely as possible and the consumption of oil is on us as a group to resolve. Absolute emissions increasing is the extremely bad thing which fucks the planet. Which is exactly what the shareholders were demanding action on. Also "If we reduce emissions someone else will increase them" is the kind of big brain thinking that leads to nobody reducing emissions ever. Someone has to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:eh, It is disingenuous to say that part of BP's carbon reduction should be reducing product. It just means the final product will be produced by someone else (Iran, tar oil sands in Canada, etc). BP should be focused on producing oil for as few scope 3 emissions as possible for as cheap as possible, safely as possible and the consumption of oil is on us as a group to resolve. I agree lets leave the multinationals to do as they please. only individual minimisation will solve this!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 10:13
|
|
|
"We're doing our part, are you?*" *We're not doing our part
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 10:28
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Honestly I was super burnt by Tony Abbott as I thought he was unelectable. Then I thought the same about Morrison vs Shorten, especially as Shorten had an actual policy platform of moderate but decent change. So I’m out of the projecting the future game. abbott would have been unelectable if labor didn't spend 4 years self-destructing, but his hard-headed oppositional style was good at capitalising on that. dutton is trying the same thing but it's not working right now because labor have yet to seriously gently caress up and aren't tearing each other apart. rudd's biggest mistake was not calling a double dissolution in 2009 to get a more workable senate when he had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:36
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Not entirely true, as reductions in overall supply drive the global price up which further incentivises transitions towards cheaper renewables. There are better ways to increase cost of emitting that don't involve replacing low scope three existing wells run by BP with marginal wells operated by juniors or private investors without the imperative that goes with a major publicly listed company. EG, fuel taxes, price on carbon including scope three emissions for the private sector, prioritizing reduction in government emissions even where it may impact services for the public sector. For eg, the rise in gas prices in EU from reports has had a downward impact on gas emissions (in Europe, liquefying the replacement gas probably drove overall emissions up) but come with massive profits that everyone is down in the mouth about for other gas suppliers and increased cash outflows for the governments pumping in subsidies to avoid most riots, strikes and public unrest. The one benefit of targeting supply side is that it limits emissions of developing countries (indeed, focusses reductions onto them away from higher paying customers) far more effectively if we think the high quality of life index countries should be taking direct/colonial action to impose global goals upon developing countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The one benefit of targeting supply side is that it limits emissions of developing countries (indeed, focusses reductions onto them away from higher paying customers) far more effectively if we think the high quality of life index countries should be taking direct/colonial action to impose global goals upon developing countries. Targetting supply side limits the emissions of everyone. Please look up emissions per capita of all countries. Reducing net emissions is exactly what the shareholders are demanding, BP should reduce production. Please also google the IMF. EDIT: Seriously, do you imagine for a single second that any crying about the harm to developing countries from oil and gas producers is anything but cynical? Do you think they actually give a single poo poo? Sure, lets cut production and force all companies to pay reparations for exploitation, but the damage from not cutting emissions to those countries is going to be FAR WORSE. Please, please actually think about the broader context in which this "moral" case exists and don't just repeat pro oil propaganda uncritically. hooman fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:For eg, the rise in gas prices in EU from reports has had a downward impact on gas emissions (in Europe, liquefying the replacement gas probably drove overall emissions up) but come with massive profits that everyone is down in the mouth about for other gas suppliers and increased cash outflows for the governments pumping in subsidies to avoid most riots, strikes and public unrest. This is literally also a good thing. Institute a super profits tax to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:There are better ways to increase cost of emitting that don't involve replacing low scope three existing wells run by BP with marginal wells operated by juniors or private investors without the imperative that goes with a major publicly listed company. And for a final in the triple post. I do not give a single gently caress about "cost of emitting", because as you so rightly say cost of emitting is merely going to rearrange finances. We need to emit less. That is exactly what the BP shareholders are demanding. Emit. Less. How, how you can write an entire post that is this bad? Every part of that post is just staggeringly moronic. God drat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
lih posted:abbott would have been unelectable if labor didn't spend 4 years self-destructing, but his hard-headed oppositional style was good at capitalising on that. dutton is trying the same thing but it's not working right now because labor have yet to seriously gently caress up and aren't tearing each other apart. Abbott was the perfect opposition leader at the perfect time for the Libs. A hard arsed man constantly on the attack and constantly saying "No!" to a PM who was perceived as a soft weak *gasp* woman, and was hindered by not having a clear majority to force through policy. The racism and sexism were also helpful at the time. I would posit that he was still unelectable, as shown by him not even lasting a full term before being spilled. It's just his attack dog style of old school conservatism worked at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
That and a dead hamster would probably have been able to beat the ALP given Murdoch's channeled outrage over the unforgivable crime of replacing his Annointed One with a Woman. Shifting demographics and the fact that even the boomers are all in on streaming services now likely means the right wing media giants will never have that level of influence again. There are still issues/risks associated with monolithic social media corps being totally stacked with Republican party lunatics, but I don't think Facebook for example expected to be outed so hard/fast in the aftermath of 2016. We'll likely see fewer outright attempts to swing elections, and more quiet fiddling of the algorithms to manipulate public opinion on individual issues, and mitigate against Gen Z becoming a socialist bloc etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
abbott was electable in that he won in 2013, but he would have lost in a landslide in 2016 if he hadn't been forced out, yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 03:20
|
|