26150 pts ยท February 12, 2018
Corporations recording this information isn't creepy nor weird. When you go into the local shop or bar and the cashier greets you by name and asks if you want the usual, that's actually more personal information they're utilising to push a sale.Nothing about this influences free will. If they want to give me discounts and I want to use them, then it's mutually beneficial that they have and use this information.Stop fearmongering, there are enough real problems.
There's no need. I already don't buy stuff I've seen ads for unless it's already part of my normal life. Every ad creates a negative association, where I immediately distrust the product because the company made an ad intended to talk me into buying it but without showing what the product actually does, unedited and uncheated. Show me a marathon runner drinking Red Bull, not it making you fly or changing someone's life.
It's incredibly rare that I see an ad for a new type of product I A) wasn't already aware of and B) think would actually be useful/entertaining.On the rare occasion that I do, my default assumption is that the ad is lying to me and that the product doesn't do what's claimed. After all, if it was actually useful it wouldn't require misleading advertising - they could just show someone legitimately using the product without any cinematography or artistic licence.
I have never seen an ad that in any way made me think anything other than "Oh, here's scum trying to sell me crap by lying to me."It doesn't matter if it's a targeted ad for something I already like. The ad itself will reduce my level of interest and likely put me off purchasing for a while.
That's how I feel about all advertising. If your ad for a car shows it driving down a volcano, for deodorant shows a man chased by models, for chocolate implies it's life changing, for a loan shows people happy, for a mobile game shows a fun and interesting game, for insurance pretends it isn't a scam or in any other way exaggerates how good the product can possibly be, you've made me associate the company with dishonesty.All ads create negative association with the product, for me anyway.
I would love to have someone observe me and highlight when advertising affects a purchasing decision positively. I know there have been many times I've had a negative instinctive reaction to something because the ad is insufferable so I avoid the product instinctively, but I never remember seeing an ad for a product and thinking there's any potential I'd ever buy it. (unless already familiar of course).
Agreed. I find a great metric for action movies is "can I tell what's happening, or is it simply high paced heart pumping nonsense?"As an example, you can make a badly thrown punch "exciting" with a dozen camera cuts and the right music. But that will never be as interesting to watch as a Jackie Chan stunt sequence where I can follow what's happening and am impressed by it.Compare a professional chef's signature dish versus a donut. Both are delicious, but only one is quality.
Diversity is good, but should not be a major factor in choosing candidates. A fair system should result in a diverse group of leaders naturally without any effort to ensure it happens.Nobody should want claims of "reverse discrimination" to have any grounds, especially considering that we should expect significant diversity within selected candidates anyway.Of course, this assumes the existence of a fair system - which cannot be democracy as the average opinion of any large group is moronic.
I agree on all points. I was briefly worried that she was going to claim we needed female leaders, learning from elephants. We don't.What we need is the best leadership available, and gender isn't a factor in that. Neither is race, nor religion, nor sexuality. As long as a leader has transparency, integrity and empathy then they are a strong candidate.Of course, these are all qualities it's impossible to become a billionaire whilst holding as that requires exploitation.
It does indeed. It shows that I can think critically, even of myself and my own views. This helps me to grow, meaning that my views grow more accurate over time.
Firstly, there are many college degrees. Most of them aren't medicine.Secondly, doctors pay a fortune in college fees, and make less money than they used to.Finally, the maths isn't that hard here. Common child age: ~25. Reasonable college age: ~18 - 22. Paying off debt for over 20 years is far from unheard of, especially when jobs aren't paying enough to pay much more than the interest.
However, I also believe that bastards behave more bastardy if they're struggling to survive and less bastardy if they are relatively comfortable.Of course, once a bastard has sufficient wealth they become a bigger bastard than ever before, with the ability to be a bastard in new and more impactful ways. The level of bastarditity seems to be inversely normally distributed: Too little money, utter bastard. Too much money, total bastard. Trillionaire: the most bastard a bastard can bastard.
I believe that people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
I'd say that's true of any form of written communication. If I text you at 3pm and you don't reply until the next morning, there's no apology necessary. That's the whole point of text based communication.If you always reply immediately, it makes me uncomfortable. Do you never work? Sleep? Drive? Go to the cinema? Pay attention to the people you're with? Just focus on anything but your phone? Seems rude to me. Leave me on read for a few hours, it's more polite.
Voting is just like public transport, except that even if there isn't one going in the vague right direction you're still forced to board one anyway. Odds are your options are to board the train that takes you to the wrong side of the country or the space shuttle that'll leave you off on Pluto. Both worse than doing nothing.But doing nothing is not an option, you still have to board one. If you don't choose, one will be chosen for you. Pick the least bad option, that is easiest to recover from
10s of millions is justifiable. Arguably immoral depending how you're spending it, but justifiable.A billion is not justifiable. It is logically impossible to be a moral billionaire. Literally the only way to have that wealth is to have stolen it. You own a major company? Great, why aren't the employees all wealthier if the business is thriving that much? Inhereted it? Fund charitable causes.No billionaire can possibly be a good person. Put them through the eye of a needle - use a blender.
An analogy, playing devil's advocate:Let's suppose that everyone on benefits in every country is actually just scamming the government for benefits. While we're at it, let's say every immigrant is too, defined as anyone from Africa, South America, Mexico, Eastern Europe and the Middle East - excluding only those who are already millionaires. Crucially, including those who live in those countries.They still wouldn't be stealing as much money each year as the 1% do every day.
I figure that's a big reason to get to know the person well before getting engaged."Would the person I was recognise me today?" seems less important than "would the person I was respect me today?"Get to know how they handle tough situations. Get to know how they make decisions. Determine whether you can trust them, not necessarily to make the same decisions you would've made but to make decisions you can respect.If you know them, you know how they'll deal with changing over time.
Can you elaborate? If people do something that inconveniences me, I rarely assume the best of them and hear them out. See: handing out flyers in the street, trying to wash my windscreen at traffic lights etc.It seems reasonable that people won't be sympathetic to the group that barricaded the motorway, wasting hours of their day. It seems foolish to assume that any action is better than doing nothing just because someone else was hurt by it. Nobody wants to accept their own powerlessness.
If I end up dying having given 100 people money for drugs and only helped one person who needed food, I'll still consider that a win over dying never having helped anyone.
That's not what's being proposed. This guy claims he agrees he should pay more tax, yet he still avoids paying what he knows he should. Calling out one person's hypocrisy isn't the same as suggesting a general policy solution.
I suspect adding the above incentive would result in your solution.
True, but have you seen one that has items at every price? The example was oversimplified. More realistically, the items you actually want won't actually be priced in a way to perfectly hit your budget. For instance, any store that sells $100 gift cards is more likely to sell items priced between $75 and $125 than it is to sell penny chews. You might be able to buy one item you want and some bit of tat, but you're still giving them money for something you didn't want to buy.
Unless you're in the UK selling houses. Then you can just fraudulently advertise them at 40% below the price you'll even consider accepting, trusting the market to bid it up. And if the market doesn't, you just reject bids anyway.
Given the choice between listening to Beiber or having my fingernails prised off, I'll choose Beiber every time. That doesn't mean I'll pretend it's a good option, that he's a great musician or even that he's a good person. Only that it's the least bad option.I will complain that those were the options I was given, and highlight that I had no real agency in the matter despite being given options.
Does cash expire? No.Do gift cards? Yes.Does this make cash superior to the alleged equivalent value in gift cards? Yes.Plus the silly limitations on what you can spend it on and how you can't get change. A $100 gift card for a store that only sells $60 items is either a 40% markup or a $20 obligation, all with a time limit.
We already interpret what that means in murder cases. And assault. And thievery. Granted, some will slip through by bribing the right officials but that's still better than the current system where they don't even have to pay to bribe anyone.
Somewhat debatable: some of us just have bad taste or an inaccurate body image.For instance, some have such a distorted self image that they'd only feel comfortable in something that not only covers every inch of skin but hides the shape of their body entirely. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with them and they'd look great in something more comfortable.Others have the opposite problem entirely. They're the people everyone avoids at the shops.
I want them all tried. There are likely people mentioned who had nothing to do with the crimes being committed, and it's important we find out who. But investigations should be thorough for all, and public figures held to a higher standard than anyone else.If Joe Bloggs would serve 10 years then anyone involved with making or enforcing the law should serve 20. Every decision they ever made should be reviewed, and their known associates blacklisted from any office.
Or simply close all the loopholes. Write common sense into law: "Any individual determined to have acquired finances by means with apparent intent to avoid tax will be subject to a fine proportionate to the tax avoided."There's no similar specificity in murder laws. There, we simply judge whether an individual reasonably knew that a consequence of their actions would kill someone.Making tax law overly specific is an intentional choice to ensure there are always loopholes.
Corporations recording this information isn't creepy nor weird. When you go into the local shop or bar and the cashier greets you by name and asks if you want the usual, that's actually more personal information they're utilising to push a sale.
Nothing about this influences free will. If they want to give me discounts and I want to use them, then it's mutually beneficial that they have and use this information.
Stop fearmongering, there are enough real problems.
There's no need. I already don't buy stuff I've seen ads for unless it's already part of my normal life. Every ad creates a negative association, where I immediately distrust the product because the company made an ad intended to talk me into buying it but without showing what the product actually does, unedited and uncheated. Show me a marathon runner drinking Red Bull, not it making you fly or changing someone's life.
It's incredibly rare that I see an ad for a new type of product I A) wasn't already aware of and B) think would actually be useful/entertaining.
On the rare occasion that I do, my default assumption is that the ad is lying to me and that the product doesn't do what's claimed. After all, if it was actually useful it wouldn't require misleading advertising - they could just show someone legitimately using the product without any cinematography or artistic licence.
I have never seen an ad that in any way made me think anything other than "Oh, here's scum trying to sell me crap by lying to me."
It doesn't matter if it's a targeted ad for something I already like. The ad itself will reduce my level of interest and likely put me off purchasing for a while.
That's how I feel about all advertising. If your ad for a car shows it driving down a volcano, for deodorant shows a man chased by models, for chocolate implies it's life changing, for a loan shows people happy, for a mobile game shows a fun and interesting game, for insurance pretends it isn't a scam or in any other way exaggerates how good the product can possibly be, you've made me associate the company with dishonesty.
All ads create negative association with the product, for me anyway.
I would love to have someone observe me and highlight when advertising affects a purchasing decision positively. I know there have been many times I've had a negative instinctive reaction to something because the ad is insufferable so I avoid the product instinctively, but I never remember seeing an ad for a product and thinking there's any potential I'd ever buy it. (unless already familiar of course).
Agreed. I find a great metric for action movies is "can I tell what's happening, or is it simply high paced heart pumping nonsense?"
As an example, you can make a badly thrown punch "exciting" with a dozen camera cuts and the right music. But that will never be as interesting to watch as a Jackie Chan stunt sequence where I can follow what's happening and am impressed by it.
Compare a professional chef's signature dish versus a donut. Both are delicious, but only one is quality.
Diversity is good, but should not be a major factor in choosing candidates. A fair system should result in a diverse group of leaders naturally without any effort to ensure it happens.
Nobody should want claims of "reverse discrimination" to have any grounds, especially considering that we should expect significant diversity within selected candidates anyway.
Of course, this assumes the existence of a fair system - which cannot be democracy as the average opinion of any large group is moronic.
I agree on all points. I was briefly worried that she was going to claim we needed female leaders, learning from elephants. We don't.
What we need is the best leadership available, and gender isn't a factor in that. Neither is race, nor religion, nor sexuality. As long as a leader has transparency, integrity and empathy then they are a strong candidate.
Of course, these are all qualities it's impossible to become a billionaire whilst holding as that requires exploitation.
It does indeed. It shows that I can think critically, even of myself and my own views. This helps me to grow, meaning that my views grow more accurate over time.
Firstly, there are many college degrees. Most of them aren't medicine.
Secondly, doctors pay a fortune in college fees, and make less money than they used to.
Finally, the maths isn't that hard here. Common child age: ~25. Reasonable college age: ~18 - 22. Paying off debt for over 20 years is far from unheard of, especially when jobs aren't paying enough to pay much more than the interest.
However, I also believe that bastards behave more bastardy if they're struggling to survive and less bastardy if they are relatively comfortable.
Of course, once a bastard has sufficient wealth they become a bigger bastard than ever before, with the ability to be a bastard in new and more impactful ways. The level of bastarditity seems to be inversely normally distributed: Too little money, utter bastard. Too much money, total bastard. Trillionaire: the most bastard a bastard can bastard.
I believe that people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
I'd say that's true of any form of written communication. If I text you at 3pm and you don't reply until the next morning, there's no apology necessary. That's the whole point of text based communication.
If you always reply immediately, it makes me uncomfortable. Do you never work? Sleep? Drive? Go to the cinema? Pay attention to the people you're with? Just focus on anything but your phone? Seems rude to me. Leave me on read for a few hours, it's more polite.
Voting is just like public transport, except that even if there isn't one going in the vague right direction you're still forced to board one anyway. Odds are your options are to board the train that takes you to the wrong side of the country or the space shuttle that'll leave you off on Pluto. Both worse than doing nothing.
But doing nothing is not an option, you still have to board one. If you don't choose, one will be chosen for you. Pick the least bad option, that is easiest to recover from
10s of millions is justifiable. Arguably immoral depending how you're spending it, but justifiable.
A billion is not justifiable. It is logically impossible to be a moral billionaire. Literally the only way to have that wealth is to have stolen it. You own a major company? Great, why aren't the employees all wealthier if the business is thriving that much? Inhereted it? Fund charitable causes.
No billionaire can possibly be a good person. Put them through the eye of a needle - use a blender.
An analogy, playing devil's advocate:
Let's suppose that everyone on benefits in every country is actually just scamming the government for benefits. While we're at it, let's say every immigrant is too, defined as anyone from Africa, South America, Mexico, Eastern Europe and the Middle East - excluding only those who are already millionaires. Crucially, including those who live in those countries.
They still wouldn't be stealing as much money each year as the 1% do every day.
I figure that's a big reason to get to know the person well before getting engaged.
"Would the person I was recognise me today?" seems less important than "would the person I was respect me today?"
Get to know how they handle tough situations. Get to know how they make decisions. Determine whether you can trust them, not necessarily to make the same decisions you would've made but to make decisions you can respect.
If you know them, you know how they'll deal with changing over time.
Can you elaborate? If people do something that inconveniences me, I rarely assume the best of them and hear them out. See: handing out flyers in the street, trying to wash my windscreen at traffic lights etc.
It seems reasonable that people won't be sympathetic to the group that barricaded the motorway, wasting hours of their day. It seems foolish to assume that any action is better than doing nothing just because someone else was hurt by it. Nobody wants to accept their own powerlessness.
If I end up dying having given 100 people money for drugs and only helped one person who needed food, I'll still consider that a win over dying never having helped anyone.
That's not what's being proposed. This guy claims he agrees he should pay more tax, yet he still avoids paying what he knows he should. Calling out one person's hypocrisy isn't the same as suggesting a general policy solution.
I suspect adding the above incentive would result in your solution.
True, but have you seen one that has items at every price? The example was oversimplified. More realistically, the items you actually want won't actually be priced in a way to perfectly hit your budget. For instance, any store that sells $100 gift cards is more likely to sell items priced between $75 and $125 than it is to sell penny chews. You might be able to buy one item you want and some bit of tat, but you're still giving them money for something you didn't want to buy.
Unless you're in the UK selling houses. Then you can just fraudulently advertise them at 40% below the price you'll even consider accepting, trusting the market to bid it up. And if the market doesn't, you just reject bids anyway.
Given the choice between listening to Beiber or having my fingernails prised off, I'll choose Beiber every time. That doesn't mean I'll pretend it's a good option, that he's a great musician or even that he's a good person. Only that it's the least bad option.
I will complain that those were the options I was given, and highlight that I had no real agency in the matter despite being given options.
Does cash expire? No.
Do gift cards? Yes.
Does this make cash superior to the alleged equivalent value in gift cards? Yes.
Plus the silly limitations on what you can spend it on and how you can't get change. A $100 gift card for a store that only sells $60 items is either a 40% markup or a $20 obligation, all with a time limit.
We already interpret what that means in murder cases. And assault. And thievery. Granted, some will slip through by bribing the right officials but that's still better than the current system where they don't even have to pay to bribe anyone.
Somewhat debatable: some of us just have bad taste or an inaccurate body image.
For instance, some have such a distorted self image that they'd only feel comfortable in something that not only covers every inch of skin but hides the shape of their body entirely. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with them and they'd look great in something more comfortable.
Others have the opposite problem entirely. They're the people everyone avoids at the shops.
I want them all tried. There are likely people mentioned who had nothing to do with the crimes being committed, and it's important we find out who. But investigations should be thorough for all, and public figures held to a higher standard than anyone else.
If Joe Bloggs would serve 10 years then anyone involved with making or enforcing the law should serve 20. Every decision they ever made should be reviewed, and their known associates blacklisted from any office.
Or simply close all the loopholes. Write common sense into law: "Any individual determined to have acquired finances by means with apparent intent to avoid tax will be subject to a fine proportionate to the tax avoided."
There's no similar specificity in murder laws. There, we simply judge whether an individual reasonably knew that a consequence of their actions would kill someone.Making tax law overly specific is an intentional choice to ensure there are always loopholes.