Clean hands, Cool head, Warm heart.

GP, Gardener, Radical progressive

  • 2 Posts
  • 46 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 7th, 2024

help-circle


  • The budget deficit has been reducing over time under the current government, the man promoting nuclear is Dutton the opposition leader, his plans for nuclear power are being criticized as expensive, he is being portrayed as stupid in promoting nuclear which would reverse the trend of reducing deficits.

    It’s a bit convoluted and not particularly funny but it does make sense.



  • Modern guns a extremely precisely engineered devices that are incredibly easy to use, for better or worse. I know modern sporting bows are also but it’s no contest in my opinion.

    I’ve shot both, bows as a complete amateur and relatively competent with a rifle. There is no question that a modern gun is way easier to pick up as an amateur and hit what you want to hit and I cannot possibly believe there are anything other than extremely niche uses where a bow is superior.


  • I’m very much a privacy amateur but am interested in comments on my set up, I’m sure it’s not ideal.

    I use firstname@lastname.tld for personal email. Anything @lastname.tld forwards to my main email so for the rare occasion I need to access Facebook my account is facebook@lastname.tld and so on for any other untrustworthy sites.

    I can easily block emails from a leak or just if unsubscribing is made difficult.




  • I understand why you are putting them together but I think only the CPI measures inflation, there are other indexes also but inflation has to do with the value of money decreasing over time.

    The supply of money is inextricably linked to inflation but an increasing money supply is not inflation, under certain circumstances you could have no, or negative inflation, with increasing money supply. If you had high demand for currency due to large volumes of exports for example.

    In short the terms you want are inflation and money supply.

    Disclaimer: I dropped out of an undergraduate economics degree about 2/3 through around 15 years ago. I believe this is correct but please anyone correct me if not.








  • While I think that legalisation, or at least decriminalisation, for personal use is probably the right policy decision I agree with Elton to a degree.

    Currently there is a fairly well established cultural belief at least in English speaking countries that marijuana is not addictive, not dangerous to health, and not problematic at all.

    The belief that marijuana is largely harmless persists despite the fact that we all know people who smoke excessively to the point of making their lives worse and if they come to this realisation they find it incredibly difficult to stop.

    Criminalisation of marijuana, especially combined with over policing of specific communities as occurred in the USA, is a disaster. But not recognising the very real harms that marijuana does to some peoples lives is also a disaster.


  • I think the debate on this issue is blown out of proportion.

    First, giving a small amount of money to someone in need is a very direct and human act of compassion which makes it worthwhile, if you gift someone money it is their prerogative what they do with it and the idea that it is harmful is blown out of proportion.

    Second, giving money to a local charity is also worthwhile, if you don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason.

    The idea that one approach is good and the other is actively bad is at best a distraction and at worst an excuse to do nothing at all

    The fact is that even in Australia, which by world standards has a not bad safety net, it is not possible for most people to get crisis housing and waiting lists for public housing are rarely less than 6 months, welfare payments can be cut off for trivial reasons and public mental health services are overwhelmed. These are the problems that successive governments have refused to tackle.

    If you can make someone’s day with a small gift then please do.