What you're missing is that he's talking about wealth not income. Income to create wealth is different from income funding expenditure.
I know that earning more than around 4 times the national average wage is all I need, and that going to 5 times will make fuck all difference to my happiness.
I also know that not having to earn a fucking penny and still having the lifestyle a salary 4 times the average wage would fund would be bloody fantastic. So yes, earning $15m in the next year and retiring is to me infinitely better than earning $75k/year for the next 20 years.
Bollocks. 'Sense my body' could be interpreted a number of ways, many of which are utter bollocks.
Consciously aware of muscle loads and gravity is a more useful description, it's tangible and easier to answer. But am I mindful when dancing and mindless when using a computer? Or am I not mindful when I'm dancing because I didn't know that's what you meant by 'sense of body', because the question was bollocks.
All of the questions are bollocks. "Are you a zen master, able to levitate and bend others to your will through thought alone" would be a more realistic and approachable question.
Mindfulness is a shitty term that's described badly and seems to be used primarily to make fuckwits feel superior to the people around them, entirely disregarding the skills and abilities that make those people so fucking awesome in their own right.
But hey, I don't practice mindfulness. Except when I'm sat on the toilet, eyes closed, generously sharing myself with the waiting waters below.
Wouldn't this end up with MORE time stacked onto the these prisoner's sentence? Wouldn't this end up with MORE cost to the U.S. taxpayers for court time and incarceration time?
No. Instead you'd see people getting a sensible tariff for their crimes, including freedom for those that committed none.
"80 years if you fight or 8 years if you plea guilty to this lesser crime" isn't justice. Either they committed crimes society deemed worthy of an 80 year jail term or they did not. The one thing that's pretty fucking certain is that they didn't commit a crime worth an 8 year punishment.
So try them for the crimes they're alleged to have committed. If you only want them in prison for 8 years, change the tariffs for those crimes so that a judge can give them 8 years.
Right now people plead guilty because of coercion, fear and the cost of fighting to prove their innocence. That's not justice, and "justice is too expensive" is if anything worse.
How are the two related? One is a fraudster whose business failed after the fraud was exposed and is currently facing legal action. The other is a billionaire because he successfully started and ran and continues to run multiple companies.
It says a lot that it's not immediately obvious to which you refer at any point in that sentence.
The British grew up with bombings. Except they were being done by people with light coloured skin and Celtic bloodlines.
The British have been knifing each other for centuries. Even the current issues are related to poverty and have very little to do with skin colour.
The British have fewer traffic accidents than almost any other nation on the planet. They also deal with them extremely calmly - e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Areas of the UK may be turning into total shitholes, but I can at least hope they'll never drop so far that you'll feel at home in them, using such childish slurs as 'mudscums'.
I get on a ferry, two hours later I'm in france. I point my camera at myself and say, "Bonjour" I point it at my friend, who says, "Bonjour"
I get back on the Ferry, two hours later I'm back in the UK. I spend another two hours editing the footage, replicating it, adding titles and credits, and end up with a two hour film consisting of two people saying, "Bonjour" to each other.
It's art. It's in French. It's made in France. Not only can Netflix host it, I can do them a dozen different recuts.
The worse thing about this plan isn't that it subverts the proposed stupid protectionist European law, it's that people in France would actually watch and like it.
That's the main thing that puts me off doing this, earning myself 20 quid from Netflix.
You're just saying it's okay to push one out and then deprive the kid of an average upbringing
I certainly think that's acceptable. I mean, it already happens to half the kids out there.
I'm saying it's not
Then you don't understand averages. Most people want to do more for their kids but children are very resilient. Compare 99% of the world's population to American kids; you're setting a stupidly high bar here.
Shopping, over and over, because the little buggers constantly outgrow their clothes
Oh noes! Not the three fucking times a year my mother had to take me shopping.
Trust me, it was the other 200 times that she forced me to come shopping because she was going anyway that annoyed me.
(pre-)(nursery-)(high-)(sometimes trade/college-)School. Sports. Plays. etc.
You don't appear to live in the real world. I didn't get most of that shit as a child, it was't available or my parents couldn't afford it. One the rare occasions it did happen we'd take public transport, or walk. My parents didn't even own a car until I was 12.
Presuming the cost is only $200/yr, even year 2, is incredibly lowball unless you're raising your kid in a shed out back.
I think my parents spent $200 transporting me (even allowing for inflation) between the ages of around 2 and 7. That's in total, not per year.
And there's the I don't have a vehicle case (city living) where the cost moves to taxis, busses, subways, etc. The kid still needs specific material support, and it's not going to all happen at home
Doctor - walking distance Shops - walking distance Pharmacy - walking distance Dentist - walking distance Nursery/school/library/gym/skate park/countryside/ducks to feed/mothers groups/coffee mornings/religious establishments/everything you need to raise a child - walking distance
I don't live in a big city, I live in a village and oddly enough everything a parent needs is in walking distance. Go to a city and you merely get additional choices.
His salient point is that you're quoting the amount an affluent person will spend on a child, that children can be raised far more cheaply, and that negates your entire fucking point to start with. Raising children isn't cheap but it isn't expensive either and your assumptions are flawed.
Women don't just fight against visitation rights (because it's inconvenient to them) they weaponise them to extort more money from the fathers.
That's before we look at the number of women that lie about domestic abuse in order to get larger settlements or fuck over the man they're separating from. While I can understand the courts needing to assure the children are protected the current systems are horrifically biased, broken and damaging children.
Fuck visitation rights, why isn't the default basic situation that neither parent pays the other and both get to share custody equally, 50% each. Because I know a lot of men that would love that much more time with their children, and to be able to spend their money on their child, not the vicious lying bitch they were unfortunate enough to once think might be a good mother for it.
Amazon will pay a shitty wage. A union can't stop that, they have no tools to prevent it. If they go on strike Amazon will close the warehouse and open a new one three counties away.
That doesn't need to happen often before workers refuse to go on strike.
Amazon don't have to invest in factories, plant, expensive retail premises. They have a transferable footprint and will move it away from things that damage their ability to operate profitably.
erm. Trade secrets aren't physical capital. They're one of the textbook examples of an intangible asset.
Amazon's physical capital is tiny. Sure, the raw numbers are scary ($49bn in property and equipment) but they own under 6% of their premises and their cash, short term receivables, investments and intangibles are worth more.
With a market capitalisation that's shifted in value by more than their physical asset values in the past week I think its' reasonable to suggest that Bezos' wealth has very little to do with physical capital and rather more to do with projected revenue and profit for the company in which he owns shares.
I don't _think_ asking about dependents is illegal in the UK but it might be.
I certainly wouldn't assume that the number of dependents hasn't changed, or that there were no other sources of income. Especially if I was paying someone a shitty wage.
Even at a macro level, you water pot plants by putting water in the base of the pot and letting it rise up through the soil to reach the roots. You aren't going to completely dry the soil again by draining the base.
At a more detailed level, very few materials are truly dry. Solid rock contains water and (m)any granular material can be subject to fluid dynamics. I suspect liquefaction uses the trace lubrication inherent to the materials being transported, rather than a simple excess of water.
I risk dead farmers, dead lorry drivers, dead bakers every time I buy a loaf of bread.
You really think I'm going to give a shit about risking dead sailors?
Head to a poverty stricken port. "Guys, starve to death or work on this ship which is likely to sink at some point in the next 600 years, leaving you drifting in a modern well equipped lifeboat"
I'm not going to pretend it's ideal, but it compares well to, "Guys, I have no jobs today. I couldn't operate a raw materials transport business at sufficient profit so I sold the ships for scrap."
Slashdot Mirror
What you're missing is that he's talking about wealth not income. Income to create wealth is different from income funding expenditure.
I know that earning more than around 4 times the national average wage is all I need, and that going to 5 times will make fuck all difference to my happiness.
I also know that not having to earn a fucking penny and still having the lifestyle a salary 4 times the average wage would fund would be bloody fantastic. So yes, earning $15m in the next year and retiring is to me infinitely better than earning $75k/year for the next 20 years.
It's quite hard to get things done when your own staff are intentionally undermining you.
But that's last week's news, maybe you've forgotten it already.
There's a documentary available that explores this in some depth:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...
The person to whom you replied says those very words a short way through.
They make sense if you practise mindfullness.
Bollocks. 'Sense my body' could be interpreted a number of ways, many of which are utter bollocks.
Consciously aware of muscle loads and gravity is a more useful description, it's tangible and easier to answer. But am I mindful when dancing and mindless when using a computer? Or am I not mindful when I'm dancing because I didn't know that's what you meant by 'sense of body', because the question was bollocks.
All of the questions are bollocks. "Are you a zen master, able to levitate and bend others to your will through thought alone" would be a more realistic and approachable question.
Mindfulness is a shitty term that's described badly and seems to be used primarily to make fuckwits feel superior to the people around them, entirely disregarding the skills and abilities that make those people so fucking awesome in their own right.
But hey, I don't practice mindfulness. Except when I'm sat on the toilet, eyes closed, generously sharing myself with the waiting waters below.
Wouldn't this end up with MORE time stacked onto the these prisoner's sentence? Wouldn't this end up with MORE cost to the U.S. taxpayers for court time and incarceration time?
No. Instead you'd see people getting a sensible tariff for their crimes, including freedom for those that committed none.
"80 years if you fight or 8 years if you plea guilty to this lesser crime" isn't justice. Either they committed crimes society deemed worthy of an 80 year jail term or they did not. The one thing that's pretty fucking certain is that they didn't commit a crime worth an 8 year punishment.
So try them for the crimes they're alleged to have committed. If you only want them in prison for 8 years, change the tariffs for those crimes so that a judge can give them 8 years.
Right now people plead guilty because of coercion, fear and the cost of fighting to prove their innocence. That's not justice, and "justice is too expensive" is if anything worse.
How are the two related? One is a fraudster whose business failed after the fraud was exposed and is currently facing legal action. The other is a billionaire because he successfully started and ran and continues to run multiple companies.
It says a lot that it's not immediately obvious to which you refer at any point in that sentence.
It's a subsidy. Just couched in a form that forces inflation and fucks up old people trying to stay warm in winter.
Yeah. REAL demeaning.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-co...
The British grew up with bombings. Except they were being done by people with light coloured skin and Celtic bloodlines.
The British have been knifing each other for centuries. Even the current issues are related to poverty and have very little to do with skin colour.
The British have fewer traffic accidents than almost any other nation on the planet. They also deal with them extremely calmly - e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Areas of the UK may be turning into total shitholes, but I can at least hope they'll never drop so far that you'll feel at home in them, using such childish slurs as 'mudscums'.
80s German porn will be very cheap to licence, and there's a lot of it.
Disclosure: Spent teenage years in Germany in the 80s.
I get on a ferry, two hours later I'm in france. I point my camera at myself and say, "Bonjour" I point it at my friend, who says, "Bonjour"
I get back on the Ferry, two hours later I'm back in the UK. I spend another two hours editing the footage, replicating it, adding titles and credits, and end up with a two hour film consisting of two people saying, "Bonjour" to each other.
It's art. It's in French. It's made in France. Not only can Netflix host it, I can do them a dozen different recuts.
The worse thing about this plan isn't that it subverts the proposed stupid protectionist European law, it's that people in France would actually watch and like it.
That's the main thing that puts me off doing this, earning myself 20 quid from Netflix.
You're just saying it's okay to push one out and then deprive the kid of an average upbringing
I certainly think that's acceptable. I mean, it already happens to half the kids out there.
I'm saying it's not
Then you don't understand averages. Most people want to do more for their kids but children are very resilient. Compare 99% of the world's population to American kids; you're setting a stupidly high bar here.
Shopping, over and over, because the little buggers constantly outgrow their clothes
Oh noes! Not the three fucking times a year my mother had to take me shopping.
Trust me, it was the other 200 times that she forced me to come shopping because she was going anyway that annoyed me.
(pre-)(nursery-)(high-)(sometimes trade/college-)School. Sports. Plays. etc.
You don't appear to live in the real world. I didn't get most of that shit as a child, it was't available or my parents couldn't afford it. One the rare occasions it did happen we'd take public transport, or walk. My parents didn't even own a car until I was 12.
Presuming the cost is only $200/yr, even year 2, is incredibly lowball unless you're raising your kid in a shed out back.
I think my parents spent $200 transporting me (even allowing for inflation) between the ages of around 2 and 7. That's in total, not per year.
And there's the I don't have a vehicle case (city living) where the cost moves to taxis, busses, subways, etc. The kid still needs specific material support, and it's not going to all happen at home
Doctor - walking distance
Shops - walking distance
Pharmacy - walking distance
Dentist - walking distance
Nursery/school/library/gym/skate park/countryside/ducks to feed/mothers groups/coffee mornings/religious establishments/everything you need to raise a child - walking distance
I don't live in a big city, I live in a village and oddly enough everything a parent needs is in walking distance. Go to a city and you merely get additional choices.
His salient point is that you're quoting the amount an affluent person will spend on a child, that children can be raised far more cheaply, and that negates your entire fucking point to start with. Raising children isn't cheap but it isn't expensive either and your assumptions are flawed.
if you want to maximize profits for your shareholders (and you are required by law to do that)
No, you are not. Stop repeating this inane nonsense.
How fucking naive are you?
Women don't just fight against visitation rights (because it's inconvenient to them) they weaponise them to extort more money from the fathers.
That's before we look at the number of women that lie about domestic abuse in order to get larger settlements or fuck over the man they're separating from. While I can understand the courts needing to assure the children are protected the current systems are horrifically biased, broken and damaging children.
Fuck visitation rights, why isn't the default basic situation that neither parent pays the other and both get to share custody equally, 50% each. Because I know a lot of men that would love that much more time with their children, and to be able to spend their money on their child, not the vicious lying bitch they were unfortunate enough to once think might be a good mother for it.
Unions will do fuck all.
Amazon will pay a shitty wage. A union can't stop that, they have no tools to prevent it. If they go on strike Amazon will close the warehouse and open a new one three counties away.
That doesn't need to happen often before workers refuse to go on strike.
Amazon don't have to invest in factories, plant, expensive retail premises. They have a transferable footprint and will move it away from things that damage their ability to operate profitably.
erm. Trade secrets aren't physical capital. They're one of the textbook examples of an intangible asset.
Amazon's physical capital is tiny. Sure, the raw numbers are scary ($49bn in property and equipment) but they own under 6% of their premises and their cash, short term receivables, investments and intangibles are worth more.
With a market capitalisation that's shifted in value by more than their physical asset values in the past week I think its' reasonable to suggest that Bezos' wealth has very little to do with physical capital and rather more to do with projected revenue and profit for the company in which he owns shares.
I don't _think_ asking about dependents is illegal in the UK but it might be.
I certainly wouldn't assume that the number of dependents hasn't changed, or that there were no other sources of income. Especially if I was paying someone a shitty wage.
Have you tried gently rocking your flower pot from side to side for four weeks without a break? :)
Someone lower down posted a more informed response detailing how it works, so I'll let you read their reply rather than repeating it badly here.
because I Sith
At last, the confession.
Or did you mean toilets? In which case they aren't a perk, they are a necessity.
No, merely a more sanitary option. Many people work in offices and lack adequate control to reach them anyway.
The telco's doesn't have there own
Read this far, burst into tears, closed the browser.
He did. How many 'Ars Technica' are out there?
No.
Even at a macro level, you water pot plants by putting water in the base of the pot and letting it rise up through the soil to reach the roots. You aren't going to completely dry the soil again by draining the base.
At a more detailed level, very few materials are truly dry. Solid rock contains water and (m)any granular material can be subject to fluid dynamics. I suspect liquefaction uses the trace lubrication inherent to the materials being transported, rather than a simple excess of water.
I risk dead farmers, dead lorry drivers, dead bakers every time I buy a loaf of bread.
You really think I'm going to give a shit about risking dead sailors?
Head to a poverty stricken port. "Guys, starve to death or work on this ship which is likely to sink at some point in the next 600 years, leaving you drifting in a modern well equipped lifeboat"
I'm not going to pretend it's ideal, but it compares well to, "Guys, I have no jobs today. I couldn't operate a raw materials transport business at sufficient profit so I sold the ships for scrap."
I think most people would consider a 600 year old ship a national treasure :)
I like your insight though, it's more useful context than the raw '1 in 12000' number.