westicle

8 ms·

31.
by westicle 13y ago
What a fantastic example of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
32.
by westicle 13y ago
You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
33.
by westicle 13y ago
Oh I totally agree - the article was effective. But I think there is a distinction between objectively high-quality journalism and convincing writing. Most writing intended to be convincing (see marketing copy, political rhetoric etc) steer
34.
by westicle 13y ago
Personally I didn't think the article was particularly clear, informative or well-written. It was emotive and brought attention to a terrible situation. But on objective measures of quality journalism, I see better articles daily in ta
35.
by westicle 13y ago
Apparently not in St Kilda.
36.
by westicle 13y ago
This. People assume that all opiate users are crackheads committing armed robbery. Many are highly skilled, highly paid professionals. I must confess a certain amount of cognitive dissonance seeing middle-aged men in tailored suits scoring
37.
by westicle 13y ago
A good cocktail showcases and highlights the component spirit(s) to make a more interesting and (hopefully) tasty drink. Unfortunately when cocktails are based on nasty components, they often end up trying to disguise the spirit with sugary
38.
by westicle 13y ago
I'm trying to inform you as to why you received downvotes. Perhaps regurgitating descriptions of logical fallacies makes you feel better, but unfortunately it doesn't improve your argument. Theft has a specific meaning which you s
39.
by westicle 13y ago
It really isn't. 1. Defaulting on a contract is, generally speaking, a civil matter and has nothing to do with theft. 2. There is no contract here, implied or explicit. 3. Buzzfeed haven't physically taken anything from the OP int
40.
by westicle 13y ago
The problem with doing that is it condones language-creep for rhetorical reasons. Theft has a meaning which involves "taking with an intent to deprive the owner of their rightful possession". Sure I understand you when you misuse
41.
by westicle 13y ago
The writing is horribly obfuscated. What it means to say is that the original bill was $134. Presumably he received dozens of notices and warnings that it needed to be paid, before it was sold as a lien. The lien holder would then have sent
42.
by westicle 13y ago
Off-colour joke... I'm pretty sure his policy platform makes no mention of criminal law reform. It was more a meta-comment on "Think what you will about Assange".
43.
by westicle 13y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it is impossible to fight. In the sense that I could fight Mike Tyson, or Don Quixote could fight a windmill, obviously it can be fought. I meant to say that as a citizen, this is impossible to stop. I say t
44.
by westicle 13y ago
For what it's worth most of the sector (including religious charities) strongly support the regulator. We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a l
45.
by westicle 13y ago
I can see you're defensive about this subject, but a simple google search of the term comes up with a wikipedia article explaining what is commonly meant by "perverse incentive". I agree that BIG creates incentives... that is
46.
by westicle 13y ago
I upvoted this, but I can't agree with it enough. Whatever you think about Assange, at least he can be relied upon to oppose: internet censorship, technologically retarded broadband infrastructure and sexual consent laws.
47.
by westicle 13y ago
Sorry, this link probably outlines the relationship much better than the above: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013... "The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church c
48.
by westicle 13y ago
I don't think this is a vote-winner; this policy has been as well-hidden as it possibly could be. 99% of voters will not even know about it. More likely some back-room deal has been done with vested interests and the implementation of
49.
by westicle 13y ago
As a citizen, this is impossible to fight. This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics, usually to much criticism (on both technical and moral grounds). It is like the Hydra - chop off one head and it will simply g
50.
by westicle 13y ago
Does this mean if you are drafted to an NFL team your expected (minimum) earnings would be $1.62M? My understanding is the median household income in the US is approx. $50,000 - about 32 years' worth of work to equal the (minimum) earn
51.
by westicle 13y ago
Because unless they're democratic, they're no true Scotsman right? I guess my problem is that whenever examples are provided which contradict the model as you proposed it you decide to "clarify" the definitions so as
52.
by westicle 13y ago
I can't tell if you're joking to make a point. Japan and Germany aren't "modern" societies? And now you're just shifting the goalposts. You never mentioned anything about democracy in the grandparent post. I wo
53.
by westicle 13y ago
Read it again. The idea under discussion is a payout to everyone. Including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. That's why it's called "guaranteed".
54.
by westicle 13y ago
I think you fundamentally misunderstood my point. The examples I gave were situations where people did something against their own interests because the current system of welfare provision is broken. Maybe that is inevitable; maybe the syst
55.
by westicle 13y ago
Take a look at world demographics for a second. The top 10 countries by birthrate are poor-as-dirt African nations. Surprise, they didn't sit down and say "I'm not having any more children until the government guarantees me $
56.
by westicle 13y ago
I have a better way to discourage child farms: only pay BIG to adults.
57.
by westicle 13y ago
Why exactly does an 18-year old with a guaranteed income need 18 years' worth of savings invested for them? I don't think you really understand the concept of a guaranteed minimum income. The idea is that you can live and eat with
58.
by westicle 13y ago
I think there are many, many problems with this concept. Children have vastly lower living expenses than adults (or more correctly - the basic marginal cost of adding a child to a household is negligible). There is no reliable way to ensure
59.
by westicle 13y ago
One thing I like about this policy is it removes all kinds of perverse incentives which currently exist. Some (true) personal examples: a friend of mine is moderately disabled and lives with his elderly parents. He wants (and they desperate
60.
by westicle 13y ago
Not sure if you read all of the linked article but it proposes a basic income for adults only. This makes sense to me; children don't have a clue about money. Although if a child were say, emancipated from her family (living independen

More ›