Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Content Count

    14,757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Riedquat

    Quarter of a rasher a day..... LOL

    The problem with "may" is that it needs to be qualified. If it's got a 50-50 chance of taking 20 years off my life that's a cause for change. If it's got a 1:100 000 chance of taking a year off I couldn't care less. It's like saying "doing this will have your chance of X!" Whether I give a crap depends on how likely X is in the first place. If it's 50-50, again, significant. If it's 2 in a million halving it to 1 in a million, not the slightest bit interested, no matter how simple and painless it may be.
  2. I'm actually somewhat with you on the latter (certainly not on the former, but that's not for this thread). Not in wanting the EU to succeed but on the general principles, at least to a degree. The difference is that I view a world where there is still, for want of a better word, tribalism, but we manage to get along, as the better result. It shouldn't require forcing us together - that's too much rather like eliminating differences rather than celebrating them and learning to live with them, and I also believe that in the long run that's the only way it'll work, that the alternative is analagous to suppressing individuality to achieve concensus - that'll spring leaks, so whilst it's easier to get there in the short(ish) term it's also less likely to be able to get as close to the ideal, and makes for a less interesting final result. I don't want us to think we're all Europeans. I want us to think we're all British (or English, Scottish, Welsh, N. Irish if you prefer), German, French etc. and we can all sit down and have a drink together, generally being good friends but generally minding our own business. Naive to think we can get there really, but it's the ideal vision. Better still if it covered the entire world.
  3. Who, dugsbody? Pretty sure I've been completely disagreeing with him on several things for quite a long time, not just Brexit.
  4. Yes, have to agree with that, Brexit would've never been suggested (other than by the same Eurosceptics who have been ignored since the 70s). You seem surprised at common ground! The net direction is still heavily towards the UK, and even if it wasn't it must've set those places back a long way, delaying that catching up. Our immigration policy has been fundamentally parasitic.
  5. They might equalise rather a lot faster if some countries weren't losing a lot of the people they'd needed to catch up. Freedom of movement in the EU worked before it expanded. Ideally I'd put the brakes on it until they do equalise then open it up again.
  6. Within a country it's hard to find an ethical justification for doing so (and please don't come up with some inane "what's the difference?" nonsense, even though even raising it for within a country clearly fails to grasp that) but it's certainly not helped either London or the rest of the country much. London's got too large a chunk of the jobs, everywhere else loses out, and all its services and housing have been put under immense pressure, which has rather messed up London.
  7. There's a lot of benefit to moving if the movement is reasonably balanced. Large movements in one direction towards an already developed area pile on the pressure on to that place and generally make it more unpleasant to be. Anyone who believes that the continual population growth Ponzi scheme is something desirable is nuts.
  8. Riedquat

    School debt.

    So "death by a thousand cuts" means "still more than it's been for many a year, albeit not quite the highest it's ever been"?
  9. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    VR's got quite some way to go before it genuinely feels like being in a place. Some of the current shortcomings I can see being overcome (field of view and resolution) but locomotion remains an issue, and even things like not being able to physically touch a door handle to open a door take away from it quite a bit. It'll be quite a while before those are solved.
  10. Riedquat

    Another Russian Spy?

    Considering that photo kept getting published at the time (or at least one that looked pretty similar IIRC) the "after" claim is nonsense.
  11. The few simple rules stop it from being that completely free market. And defining harm or loss will soon stop those rules from being simple.
  12. No mention of nuts and bolts there. Banks got less regulation, everything went pear-shaped. Your freedom is the freedom to be screwed over by the richer and more powerful. There's no concept of balance in your arguments, it's all one extreme or the other, and you use points of the extreme you don't like to try to justify the opposite end of the spectrum.
  13. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    Yeah, certainly by the 70s, probably a bit earlier for me personally I reckon. Most / all of the things I probably wouldn't want to live without had been invented a fair bit earlier but wouldn't have been easily available to most people for quite a while. The problem looking back is that people shy away from the 70s because of the economic situation at the time - like you say - if you had a job, and lump that together with the available standard of living but they're really two separate issues. I think I could've got by pre-war if (and admittedly it's a reasonably big if) I liked where I lived and had a decent paying job, but that would've been harder to get then even without considering the even worse economic situation, working conditions would probably be more offputting than living conditions by then. Definitely OK by the 60s, I think my material needs would've been entirely satisfied by that point.
  14. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    So nice and draughty too then? Well, should keep the air fresher. Vainly trying to get back on topic I think the point is that there's a point at which material standards of living become reasonably OK, and other things play a much bigger part in how happy and satisfying life is, yet people carry on pursuing more of that material. The point of becoming OK might change from person to person (personally speaking neither having to grub around in dirt all day just to barely survive nor living a thoroughly sterile, hands off, effortless life appeal) but we should all bear in it in mind. We evolved in an environment where there never was enough, hence the drive to always have more, whether that's food or comfort. I tend to view such developments as going along the line from: Insufficient to survive -> grim -> tough -> OK -> pleasant -> starting to get silly -> hate it
  15. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    "Grass growing in it" implies a hole in the ground and no sewer or even septic tank. That's a bit much for me. Outdoors, could cope with that (the ones when I was at school weren't much better, an unheated room only accessible from outside). I've lived in a place with coal fires and storage heaters and the fires were the main source of heating because storage heaters are hopeless. That was fine, although I did rely on someone getting up before me to light the fire (was still freezing in the bedroom though). Come to think of it that place had an outside toilet too, but an inside one as well, just as well since the outside one froze solid in the winter. In short I just don't find all of that so uncomfortable that doing away with them is a major improvement in quality of life. Some improvement, yes, would prefer to have them than not, yes, but not grim hardship (and it being in generally pleasant surroundings helped a lot). No hot water on the other hand, I'd probably start to grumble, let alone no piped water at all, and typical Victorian levels of crowding sound pretty grim. Don't think I'd want to not have a fridge / freezer either.
  16. You think so? People really don't seem to care if every aspect of their lives is being watched.
  17. You're assuming one extreme or the other there.
  18. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    What are you going to do with that money? IMO it's not just about calling people up etc., that's not something I've ever been particularly interested in either, and living somewhere crowded would be hell to me but I still think decent people around, even if they're in some ways just part of the scenery, is a significant positive. They don't have to keep getting in each others' hair.
  19. Riedquat

    School debt.

    I found some inflation-adjusted spend per pupil numbers a little while ago. It had fallen a bit from a peak of about ten years ago but was still much higher than in the even not that distant past (90s, early 2000s). Makes me wonder where the money's going, although back then they could've still been subsidising themselves by selling off playing fields.
  20. Farming is subsidised and supermarkets - i.e. where most of the produce is sold, make a fortune.
  21. You can't be forced to buy something but people seem pretty willing to be encouraged to. Most people have their hooks salesmen - or algorithms - can find. You can confuse the algorithms easily enough for yourself, particularly if you don't engage in anything much that's largely a data gathering exercise but they probably aren't that bothered if they don't work for everyone. It won't poison the system.
  22. Riedquat

    Quarter of a rasher a day..... LOL

    Since we eat both chicken and beef that should be the answer. I guess people are too fussy about exactly which breeds taste good - or is it down to the economics of keeping any other than the highest yield breeds growing long enough to eat? What did they do with them in ye olde days?
  23. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    Very true, people seem to regard things as necessities that I'd regard as luxuries, even if they're fairly basic, very common luxuries. Things like indoor toilets and central heating are certainly nice to have and a genuine improvement in standard of living (unlike a lot of things we get now) but are still luxuries. I'd prefer not to live without them but if they had to go in order to get the better surroundings and company they could. There's possibly an issue that by the time we'd made standards of living reasonably tolerable we'd also effed up quite a bit else in the process, so things have never been much good.
  24. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    It's not hard to encounter people who argue that life is much better now than when they were a kid because they've got more stuff. There is probably something to be said for there being a difference between not getting more stuff because you don't want to and not getting more because you've no choice bcause you can't afford it. Good point about the Moon. Had an argument with someone once who thought that ever faster travel was a good thing. Just think about all the exciting places you could get to easily, he said. Wouldn't it be great if you could easily hop over to Tokyo for the weekend! Didn't seem to realise that if it was that easy then going to Tokyo would be as exciting as going to Brighton, nothing special. I've said it before often enough, but IMO what people need are the necessities satisfied, then good company and good surroundings. Modern life provides the necessities and more easily enough and is increasingly damaging the latter two.
  25. Riedquat

    I'm not entirely sure I understand life

    Fair point, I've got a catflap so she can get out, and I think keeping cats indoors all the time is cruel (that's why I didn't get one until I moved to somewhere where the risk of getting run over is minimal - OK the dual carriageway isn't far away but the canal is a pretty effective barrier). Not that she goes out much at the moment but the choice is there. I wouldn't even think of having a dog if there wasn't someone at home most of the time.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.