permo-w

32 ms·

241.
by permo-w 1y ago
>You understand that what something is called is not always the same as what it is, right? e.g. how you just called it a tax? you're arguing against yourself my man, your entire contribution to this discussion has been proxy argumen
242.
by permo-w 1y ago
my analysis of it is that it's a way of making people wonder "oh why is he writing it like that?" like I did, lead them to the foundation, and have them engage with it and be aware of it in the future; i.e. marketing. it&#x27
243.
by permo-w 1y ago
>It's never been changed to a direct tax to prevent direct interference from the government that's half of the reason, and also feeds into the other reason. if it's not a direct tax and it's semi-voluntary it's h
244.
by permo-w 1y ago
I see. a brief google search didn't bring up anything in relation to the leading zero concept, but that helps. at a brief glance, their use of the leading zero seems like ... clever marketing?
245.
by permo-w 1y ago
then the carbon trapped in that wood is staying there for much longer than it would otherwise
246.
by permo-w 1y ago
then again we have hundreds of years of economies of scale in place for that process, and (presumably) far less for repurifying steel. I'm not saying it's not possible, of course it's not, but is it financially viable with cu
247.
by permo-w 1y ago
why are you making the choice to place leading zeroes on your years?
248.
by permo-w 1y ago
that's not the point of the BBC whatsoever, otherwise it would just be a tax like everything else publicly owned. it's precisely the opposite in fact. it's voluntary
249.
by permo-w 1y ago
and all the smart people will be elsewhere. your job is to find elsewhere
250.
by permo-w 1y ago
feel like if they were smarter they'd be far less scary. is not the main fear with sharks that they'll mistake you for something they actually want to eat?
251.
by permo-w 1y ago
this is genuinely fascinating. your viewpoint is that you want the BBC to be disbanded because they didn't reveal anti-soviet vetting 30 years ago, anti-soviet vetting you don't support because you actually don't mind there h
252.
by permo-w 1y ago
if it goes all the way to going the stage of going to prison, then there are clearly bigger issues than this
253.
by permo-w 1y ago
agreed on every point
254.
by permo-w 1y ago
my understanding of the justification for a special system is that it's inherently more fragile and more tempting to attack than other government services, which generally provide tangibly vital, life-preserving services, rather than l
255.
by permo-w 1y ago
this isn't true. you're required to pay for it if you watch live TV. you're perfectly allowed to have a TV or laptop or any other device that can pick up live TV
256.
by permo-w 1y ago
more interesting info. I'd also add Doctor Who as a really prominent example of it. the most recent series of Doctor Who is quite obviously aimed at more of an American audience, with a star known to Americans, being released on Disney
257.
by permo-w 1y ago
>Fee
258.
by permo-w 1y ago
>It’s a modern style of criticism because….anyone…anyone… are you going through a tunnel? in all seriousness I don't know what you're trying to say
259.
by permo-w 1y ago
I have no idea but my guess is that it's handled privately so that no one at the BBC has to get their hands mucky
260.
by permo-w 1y ago
none of this is evidence anyone has been prosecuted for watching live football from a streaming service
261.
by permo-w 1y ago
I enjoy the way you think and phrase your thoughts (are you on ketamine?), but I think that publicly-owned broadcasting, particularly (exclusively) the entertainment side of things, is the opposite of republic misdesign. it's a freak a
262.
by permo-w 1y ago
interesting. I suppose the women's rights movement has been around for a very long time
263.
by permo-w 1y ago
my perspective is that we shouldn't be shaping our laws based on whether the least competent 0.001% of society can deal with the administrative implications. if you're so incompetent that you can't handle any of the many many
264.
by permo-w 1y ago
my complaint would have less merit if GP weren't simply using those hundreds of years as rhetorical technique
265.
by permo-w 1y ago
the point is that it partially takes it out of the hands of the government of the day. if it were solely funded by taxes, it would be long since dead or privatised by now, and if it weren't it would be entirely beholden to pleasing the
266.
by permo-w 1y ago
I think if you knew me you would know that I am the absolute last person who wants to privatise the BBC. the privatisation of the BBC would be the end of my world. I think the public ownership of the BBC, and the BBC in general is the great
267.
by permo-w 1y ago
I think you know how disingenuous you're being here, so I won't bless this with a genuine response
268.
by permo-w 1y ago
that's too far, agreed, although I would be extremely shocked if anyone has been prosecuted for that
269.
by permo-w 1y ago
depends who the government is really. I'd be cautiously optimistic that the current government would do something about it, ideally taking it out of the hands of a private company in the first place. this government is too nervous fo
270.
by permo-w 1y ago
I feel there's a huge problem in this debate, which is that the people who don't like it are extremely vocal, and the people who do like it and quietly use and enjoy it without necessarily adoring it, perhaps like you, who I sus

More ›