fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @aussie.zone

Posts

0

Comments

51

Joined

2 yr. ago

By that definition wouldn't the aldi network be equivalent to Vodafone?

I've also been through therapy for years, although not currently. IDK whether it's true or not but for me personally I feel as though therapy can deteriorate from a short, sharp, beneficial "intervention" (which is very helpful) into a malaise of relating ones problems to a friendly ear (which is unproductive) ... but I digress.

This sounds to me like one of those problems which is a symptom potentially caused by a myriad of different issues, and as such has no specific "cure". As you've said it's "accumulated stress", which is another way of saying the same thing. I feel like I run into this type of problem a lot: the solution is really easy, I just need to do better at life!

My one suggestion would be to look at therapies for anxiety, since anger and anxiety are commonly symptoms of the same problem. There's two common therapies for this.

Firstly Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) - figuring out why your thoughts follow the patterns they do and as a result, learning how to change those patterns. This is hard work. It's a bit like going to a gym. You need to set aside time for several sessions a week of examining the parts of yourself you've been trying not to think about your entire life. The gold standard for DIY CBT is "When Panic Attacks" by David Burns, alternatively "feeling great" by the same author. He has a podcast also. I know the dirty dog feet was just an off hand example, but to continue that example you might discover that you have a deeply held belief that people who have dirty houses end up sad lonely and unloved, a potential solution might be to tell someone who you feel is happy and well loved how difficult it is to keep a clean house - inevitably they will agree with you and tell you how hard they find keeping up with their chores.

Secondly Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) - accepting that stressors will always be present, understand that they're harmless, fleeting thoughts, and committing to a course of action that is more meaningful than simply "avoiding stress". Author Steven Hayes is the gold standard here but personally I find his stuff too heavy. I quite like "DARE" by Barry McDonagh, basically ACT but more easily digested. This one is more readily applied "in the moment". It takes practice but there's no sitting and pondering one's soul so-to-speak. This is very difficult to explain in a sentence but you might acknowledge, in the moment, that dirty dog feet are infuriating, you feel that feeling, allow it to come. What you'll find (with anxiety at least) is that if you don't resist it but regard it with a welcoming curiosity, it will dissipate fairly quickly and leave you with a kind of energised readiness. "Well that was a thing!". If feeling frustrated is a natural response, and you fight with yourself not to feel that, it creates an incredible tension - you push the feelings away and they just push back harder. You kind of learn to let the frustration come feel the feelings in a healthy way.

There are special rules for labelling for alcohol given the obvious risks of consuming more than you realised.

Here alcohol must show the percentage alcohol content, but alcohol designed to be consumed as-is (without mixing) also states the number of standard drinks.

The number of standard drinks is the same as the "amount of alcohol" you mentioned.

Other ingredients like sugar aren't shown as a percentage because manufacturers don't want to show it, and it's not required by law because although there are risks of excess consumption, they're not "immediate risk to life" type risks.

Or you know... pay for things with your card?

Not really, you can't criticise it for not being like UBI while saying it's similar to UBI even if it does not purport to be UBI.

This isn't really true.

We generally don't experiment with economic policy because it's not practical.

The main impediment to UBI is not supporting data, but political will. Voters are so used to punishing poor people that UBI just doesn't resonate with the voting public. Of course that will change with the continuing encroachment of automation.

Additionally UBI is not all or nothing. You could increase it over time. If 20% of average salary is the objective, then start with 1% this year and increase it by 1% each year for the next 19 years. It will take 20 years to dismantle the other welfare systems anyway.

This was my initial reaction also, but taking a closer look the article doesn't say anything about UBI. This is not a UBI experiment.

The report explains why they didn't look at large scale nuclear in section 2.4.4. You can download it here, but basically there are two reasons why the CSIRO and Australian Markey Energy Operator felt that large scale nuclear is not appropriate for comparison. Firstly the nature of our network precludes large scale nuclear - state networks are small compared to overseas networks, and if a single reactor powers a significant portion of a network's base load then it's difficult to shut it down for maintenance. Secondly costing reported by other jurisdictions may be inaccurate given government investment, and that capital may have already been recovered.

As regards sequestration I didn't have a thorough look at the report but it does discuss carbon capture and storage. Charts list costs as "CCS".

Sure ok but you haven't actually addressed the paradox of tolerance.

It's great that you love freedom, autonomy, and open discussions, but what if there is a group of people intent on using this inclusivity to promulgate their agenda, which is intolerance?

To say the same thing another way, these ideals are based on the premise that everyone is acting in good faith, but some are not.

As you say you need to wait until people step out of line. Modern society has determined that the "line" is somewhere before assembling in overtly intolerant groups. A parade of Nazism is already out of line.

I'm almost certain how aware of it, but you haven't addressed the intolerance paradox.

Honestly let's have some dignity and not buy into this vapid pretentious idiocy.

Privatised employment services are a shining example of a privatised service that "runs better".

It feathers the nest of capitalists with premium, predictable, inexhaustible government money.

It discourages legitimate claimants from seeking social security.

It perpetuates the notion that being unemployed and poor is the fault of the incurable laziness of the unemployed and poor.

Of course, it doesn't actually reduce unemployment or lift people out of generational poverty, but the only way to do that is to create jobs.

I've never seen the appeal. Paying more for shittier stuff and waiting longer.

Get to know your local green grocer and Butcher and pay the least for the best stuff.

Perhaps, although a little harsh. Most people just don't think that deeply about things.

The accepted narrative is that inflation happens when poor people get too much money.

Yes it's obvious that there's more going on if you think about it for a few moments, but no one does.

It's so frustrating that accommodations are made for them just because they exist and are the power brokers of yester year.

If they Vanished overnight nothing of any value would be lost.

The pitiful groans of a dying format. Shameless really.

No one has "clean hands" but that doesn't mean all parties are equal.

Wife Approval Factor

Not from Victoria and not a lawyer but...

Yes I expect it's "up to $x and up to y years in prison".

I don't really think that there's a challenge to be made against the law itself. We don't have "constitutional free speech". I'm not certain but IIRC the right to criticise the government is enshrined in case law.

It's possible or likely that far right advocacy groups will dream up one or more "test cases". A bit like Rosa Parks where the set of the most favourable circumstances possible are manufactured and then the group puts their weight behind fighting the case in court.

With this strategy they can't really neuter the law but they could get the court to adopt a more generous interpretation of "ought to have known" than the law had intended.

Stremio ? Crazy high WAF here.