Glassnoser
1yr ago
I'm guessing the first post is all real people and the second one is bots copying it. All the comments in the second post were posted within a very short period of time on a new post by accounts with usernames typically used by bots.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
The movie explains so little about the war that it isn't really about civil war. It's more about photography.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
No, it's a Pixel 6 Pro.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
I have Android 14, but I didn't know it had this ability.
I'm saying it isn't because you can control notifications within apps on Android. For example, on Instagram, I can click my face on the bottom left, then the three lines at the top left, and then notifications. Every app has something like this.
In Instagram's case, controlling notifications through the OS doesn't work because they're labelled too vaguely. They don't even mention Threads.
I'm not disputing that you can control notifications from within Android's settings. I'm disputing that you can't control from within apps.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
Android
Glassnoser
1yr ago
This is not correct. Where are you getting your information?
Glassnoser
1yr ago
Phone apps are getting really aggressive lately about constantly sending useless notifications. They make it extremely difficult to figure out how to turn them off if they even let you. Threads is especially bad about this. Is there a guide somewhere on how to disable notifications?
The more general problem I've been having lately is that settings menus are now totally unintuitive. I used to be able to find something by just looking through the menu, but now, no matter what aim looking for, I almost always have to Google it, and half the time the instructions will be wrong because the app developers seem to reorganize their menus at least once a year.
Why do they do this? I get far more utility out of the layout of an app staying the same than I do out of any design changes, usually.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
Why wouldn't the ecumene include Ethiopia and India?
Regression to the mean is an argument for having higher or lower trait thresholds for certain races, but not for excluding those races altogether.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
You do avoid some of it though by delaying it. The rate is effectively higher. The original investment was the same in both cases. There was no rebalancing.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
If you owe any capital gains tax, you're almost certainly already I'm the top tax bracket and you pay less tax the longer you go without selling.
Capgains are taxed based on a percentage of the appreciation. It's not like a financial transactions tax that is a flat fee every time a trade is made. A 20% gain will be subject to the same tax as 2 equivalent 10% gains would be.
Yes, but if you have to pay tax on the first 10%, you won't get another 10% gain. Let's say you have a $1,000 investment that grows at 10% per year and the capital gains tax is 25%. If you sell after two years, you'll have gained $210 and pay $52.50 in tax, leaving you with $1,157.50.
If instead you sold and rebought after one year, then you'd have a gain of $100 that year, leaving you with $1,075 after tax. That would give you another gain of $107.50 after the next year, in which you'd pay $26.88 after tax, leaving you with $1,155.62.
Dividends are taxed at either the personal income tax rate, or the capgains rate if they're qualified dividends.
It could be in a tax sheltered account though.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
The median Canadian does have siblings. My point was actually that the average (not median) Canadian doesn't have enough siblings and does own enough property such that he comes out ahead.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
I think you're imagining someone with a greater future housing need than what they have already paid for while my point is that Canadians, on average own more housing than what they need. This necessarily true because of the fact that homeowners and landlords are disprortionately Canadian while renters are disproportionately foreigners.
The boomers also have parents who own or owned property they inherited part of and they also own investment properties or REITs.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
There is no reason why it has to be delayed. The parents can sell at any time.
We are talking about housing affordability? What do you mean I'm being too materialistic? If materialism doesn't matter, why complain about high housing prices or a reduced standard of living?
Glassnoser
1yr ago
One issue that I've heard from friends and relatives who have had to hire contractors lately for construction and renovation work is that they are extremely unreliable. They will just drop a job at the last minute even though they agreed to do it and the rest of the project depends on them doing it. This has caused people to have to scramble at the last minute and go around begging people to help them out or it has delayed projects by months.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
The less frequently you sell your assets, the lower the effective tax rate due to capital gains tax. Also, if it's something that generates a return other than through appreciation (e.g. a dividend paying stock or real estate), by holding to it longer, you realize more of the value in a form that doesn't count as a capital gain and so you pay less tax.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
The average person blames things like foreign buyers, investors, and AirBnb which have almost no effect on property values, instead of high labour costs and regulations that restrict housing supply.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
Yes, there is no reason why am increase in property values should mean an increase in property taxes. Cities don't need more money just because property values are higher. They should fall and as a percentage of property values when property values rise.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
In Canada, your estate would have to pay a tax on 50% of the $999 capital gain before your heir inherited anything.
Yes, I understand that they have reasons for not wanting to give a definition, but that still makes it very frustrating for an open-minded person who wants to hear their ideas explained and defended.
It's also quite annoying when a group keeps saying "we're being mistreated so it's only natural we organize and defend white rights and by the way we want a white ethnostate and no we won't say what that means". I have no interest in supporting a movement that refuses to say what they're actually going to do once they have more influence. If you want more influence from me, you need to explain what it is you are trying to accomplish.
And it's not that I have high expectations for being convinced, but I will certainly be open-minded and give it a fair hearing.
The answer is that it's a peripheral question that need only be answered once white nationalism is closer to the levers of power.
I totally disagree with that because the merits of your movement entirely depend on how you define it. If your argument is that whites have certain inherent traits upon which society depends, you do actually need to say who those white people are. I don't see how people can be expected to agree on those traits if you can't agree on who you're talking about.
Once WNs have a power gradient to follow, then will be the time to start hardening feelings into policies, a process that will be constrained by whatever alliances and compromises make sense to those people, in those positions, with those connections, at that time.
That position makes sense if you're already convinced that having a white ethno-state is the right thing to do and that you will personally benefit from it regardless of precisely how the white race is defined, but for most people that isn't the case. They're either belong to one of these groups (e.g. Jews) whose place is insecure or they're white people who don't know exactly what you're proposing and therefore cannot assess whether it makes any sense.
For example, I personally think Jews are a clear net positive contribution to society, while many white nationalists are virulent anti-semites. Whether you include Jews is not an "edge case". It's a pretty important detail that determines how much the sense the movement actually makes. Or what about Iranians? The ones I've met have all been great. It matters to me whether they're included.
Now, to be fair, I don't see myself as likely to be convinced in any case, but I still think it matters whether a white ethno-state means including some of the ethnicities that seem like clear net contributors and more questionable ones that maybe have certain social problems like high crime rates or substance abuse issues. At the minimum, we should be able to agree that that is a very different argument. And you should recognize that the vast majority of the white people are in the same boat. If you want to have any hope of advancing your argument, you do need to work out some of these details. Some other extremists, like anarcho-capitalists for example, I find to be actually quite good at working out these details.
EDIT: Why is this getting downvoted so much?
Glassnoser
1yr ago
They don't have to wait for their parents to die. Their parents can sell their homes or take out mortgages. Yes, if you have siblings, your parents have an above average number of children and you are probably not coming out ahead in this system, but the average Canadian does.
Glassnoser
1yr ago
No, I'm definitely not expecting them to agree with each other. I've witnessed arguments over whether Jews are white or whether Iranians or Armenians are white. I've witnessed arguments over whether you need to be 100% pure European or whether some lower threshold is good enough. I'm just saying that when you ask any given white nationalist for a definition, they usually reject the question outright.
Flipping the woke pyramid doesn't work because the main question is who makes the cut and is allowed to stay or immigrate to your ethno-state.
This is a big problem on Manifold Markets and on Polymarket. On Manifold, there are a lot of market creators who write ambiguous resolution criteria or they even change the resolution criteria after people have placed bets. The resolution criteria often describe something quite different than what the question is literally asking. For example, there was a question that straightforwardly asked whether Israel blew up a certain hospital in Gaza, and then when it turned out the hospital hadn't been blown up at all and that the bomb had exploded in the parking lot, the question was changed to whether Israel was responsible for the explosion.
It has become common to resolve in favour of some nebulous, undefined "spirit" of the question, rather than the actual meaning of the question that was asked. A lot of markets become mainly bets on how the creator will decide to resolve it rather than on what the question is purportedly about.
On Polymarket, the resolution mechanism for disputed questions relies on a Keynesian beauty contest that has settled on an equilibrium where everyone assumes the simplest and stupidest possible interpretation, and now people are even contesting uncontroversial resolutions in order to take advantage of this broken system. There will be a question that resolves and everyone agrees that it was resolved correctly, but then the resolution will be contested and everyone knows the vote will go in favour of some hypothetical interpretation that would only work if everyone was retarded, so they vote that way. No one agrees with the interpretation, but everyone is incentivized to vote how they think everyone else will vote. And everyone knows the winning vote is expected to be the one that doesn't involve reading the full resolution description and doesn't involve using any sort of complex thought.
More options
Context Copy link