2174 posts • joined 30 Jun 2014
Re: Well, if they don't think it's fair...
Yawn. More fact free nonsense form Kiwi....
1) When you're desperate for a job you take every interview you can get. 4 in one day is pretty common.
I haven't taken any interview I was offered since I got my first job. Stay marketable. You should know why you're sought after and hireable, and work to keep it so. If you choose not to, then whose fault is that really?
Last time I was on a benefit you had to prove you were applying for 5 jobs per day 5 days per week - that's 25 applications per week.</i?
You'd really have to piss off your job coach to get that many mandatory applications. What did you do?
<i>I have interviewed for IT work at 2am. The first test was being able to reach the place at that time of the day.
Why apply for a job you know you can't do? Either you can get to the office for working horus or you can't. Pointless me applying for a job in Arizona, because I can't get there for work.
You claim "none of that is true" and yet you're also claiming I don't know your life. You don't know mine, you don't know my name, where I grew up, what sort of school I went to, what education I have.
I don't need to know. You made some manifestly untrue claims for which my entire career shown cannot be true. I don't need to knwo anything about you to know that what you say is not true because it could not be possible for me to have lived the life I have lived were what you state in any way true. It isn't.
That you think it impossible may indicate a personal failure to achieve on your own part, but that in no way implies it's impossible or even particularly difficult for everyone else.
You may've done OK with your life, but reality shows that your case is not common. Where it is not family help, it's luck.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. The harder I work, the luckier I seem to get.
At least, when the next big crash comes, I'll happily live my life without fear of losing what I have while so many others will be struggling to get by with twice what I have.
I never live in fear of losing my money or career. It's simply not that important to me realtive tot he things that are - family, friends etc. Something else would turn up; it always does.
Re: Well, if they don't think it's fair...
Who will put in the most effort? Who is most likely to be hired?
Even in your ludicrously conviluted example, the best candidate will get hired.
4 interviews in just one day is unlikely. Preparing more than 60 minutes in advance is always possible and often desirable. I've never driven or been driven to an interview in my life. I've always used public transport. Always. It simply isn't a barrier to success.
If that is really all you have, then you have nothing. Well, you seem to have an accountability problem, but other than that, you got nowt.
You also have to cook your own meals, do your own house cleaning and so on, and still be prepared for whatever work opportunity comes along.
A neat description of my life as it happens. Wealthy is not rich. If you don't understand the difference, then you're going to need some schooling.
Rich people never have to work again and can fund their lifestyle from passive income. Wealthy people can fund a lifestyle from passive income, but not their current lifestyle. I make more than minimum wage from my investments, but I have no desire to live a minimum wage lifestyle, and my dividends aren't far enough ahead of minimum wage to run the risk of their never being cut.
You have someone else to do your cooking and cleaning. Your time and mental energy can be devoted solely to your job.
No I don;'t and no they aren't. You're making sweeping assumptions based on incorrect emotions. Look at what I wrote.
I do my own cooking and cleaning (and the wifes ironing as it happens). Most of my post work mental energy is spent on raising my kids. The two hours free time I have a night are spent on hobbies, side projects (which do spin out cash as an after thought), relaxing, fitness, reading, and eating the occasional pizza in front of the TV. Probably the same as most others lives.
Who has the better opportunity?
We had the same opportunity (state educated in a crap school), paid for my own education post school, and worked my ass off to get where I am and own what I own. My car is probably older than yours because I funnelled the depreciation I would have had froma newer car into buying shares that pay enough now in dividends that I can buy a decent car using their income.
That's without looking at other things like having family who know someone and so on.
My family connections might have stretched far enough to get me a job on the factory floor. That's if I was lucky and my dad called in every favour he was ever owed.
It's easy for people like you to see others success as undeserved, or inherited, or to imagine that it's come at your own personal expense. But none of that is true. None of it.
I don't begrudge them that, but the effort they've needed to put in just to get to an interview has been far less than mine.
I've had to put in no less effort than yourself. I'm not an orphan, but then, I don't work in the factory that employed my dad. I work for a bank, hundreds of miles from the nearest person I knew when I moved here and took the job.
And in many cases, their dad has been sitting there with them saying "If you give my son a job, I'll make sure my firm sends you some business" or "We'll up your discount by another 20% for the next 5 years". Not even close to a level playing field.
Imagine that if you prefer it to reality, but that is not reality. Yes, I'm sure it does happen on occasion, but almost everyone I see around me (my office is open plan in one of the big towers) is entirely self made. I know none of their parents, and none of them know mine. We're her on our own personal merit. And the first step to joining us if to take ownership of your own current self made situation. If you want to change, then do so. But pack in blaming me for it if you don't.
Re: Well, if they don't think it's fair...
Wow, what the actual fuck?
I presume you meant "Wow, what the actual facts?"
Even just having a parent who only worked part time, so could help with your homework. Or even bother to check that you'd done it.
So, you thought your homework was you mommas job? I begin to see that by "society" you actually mean "wet nurse".
Luckily I'm in a country that does university entry entirely on merit.
Not really, since everyone gets a gazzillion A*'s now anyway, admission isn't entirely on merit, its mostly on an aptitude test and a willingness to borrow the money to pay the fees.
All the people who I know who went to Russel Group universities (that's the UK equivalent of Ivy League, albeit started a thousand years before) had a parent who'd been to one.
And yet I went to one and was the first person to go to any university in the history of my very blue collar family. The world is bigger than your little group of mates.
So somehow in this merit based environment, only the offspring of previous elites gets to go to elite institutions.
I've already demonstrated why that isn't true. My dad wasn't even elite in the pub darts league.
If we had anything resembling a meritocracy then society would not look the way it does.
Sure it would. My family connections could have set me up with a bar job if I was lucky, and my family wealth might have stretched to a weekend in Ibiza. Off season.
Of course, this does mean that if you have succeeded then it's not down to you, but more down to your good luck/choice of who your parents are and what country you are raised in.
And yet it isn't. If it were, then I'd be cutting up pieces of steel for a living and earning about half of what I pay in direct taxes. I know you want to be right about this, but you just aren't. If you're not succeeding, then it IS your fault. It's not your parents to blame here kiddo.
Being wealthy allows you to take far greator risks, since the cost of failure is much lower.
Yup, and those greater risks may one day make me rich, but getting wealthy didn't require anything but hard work and willingness to understand how capitalism works, rather than sitting comfortably in my parents house ranting about how unfair life is and how only the rich get ahead. It was bullshit when I was your age and it's still bullshit now.
ence why certain schemes are in place to ensure only those who don't need anything as crass as a paycheque can enter certain industries.
Bollocks. Name one. Just one.
anyone who argues that we exist in a meritocracy either thinks that we're pretty terrible at doing stuff (hence why our experts are shit) or has very limited experience of the world
And yet I'd wager good money that I have seen more of the world than you and lived in it a longer time. If you're this whiney when you're confronted with reality, god alone knows what you're like in your bedroom at your folks gaff. Do you actually believe any of the nonsense you've written?!
Your successes and failures in life are your own. If you want more success than failure, then step one is taking ownership.
I don't want the part that you created entirely yourself. Just the parts to cover all the things that you did use. Courts, roads, police, fire, education, that sort of thing.
So why then are 'you' taking so much?
I don't use the courts. I don't use the police. My fuel tax pays for the roads 5 times over. I don't use the fire service. I paid for my own education, thanks.
I don't mind paying for those things, but those things are a tiny fraction of my taxes. Mostly they're just wasted on welfare, public sector pensions, diversity nonsense, and administration. I've previously provided links where even the public sector think they only get 70p of value per £1 spent - that's 30p of waste that the people spending the money know they're wasting. Likely, in the real world, it's double that.
I don't just want what you earn, but tax on what you have!
Good luck. As soon as Corbyn announced he wanted to nationalise 10% of the FTSE, I moved most of my assets abroad. You can tax my house, sure, right along with your own. But much of my money is now permenantly beyond your reach. It's greedy small minded children such as yourself that discourage and render pointless the notion of hard work, personal success, and bettering yourself. Why bother when some whingey child will sinply steal it from you "because parents"?
Personally I think income taxes are a disincentive to work, since you are rewarded far more for capital gains etc.
I agree with the first part - income taxes are a disincentive to work - I've dropped nearly half my working week now trying to avoid them. And yet, still I make more from income than capital gains. Though, I'll never pay any CGT due to it not applying to offshore entities holding my assets. And you can look in the mirror for the reason I've done that.
But yeah, we don't live in a meritocracy. Within a certain group, maybe, but a meritocracy of white people isn't a meritocracy :D
Oh, so you're a racists then? White skin is not a disability or a birth defect. There's nothing about what I've done that a black person hasn't already done. It's not a race issue. Hell, most of my teams aren't white, many of them aren't men, but all of them, all of them, have taken personal responisbility for themsleves. And that, that is really all that sets them apart from you.
Re: Well, if they don't think it's fair...
Are you of the opinion that poor people are poor because of their own failings and that the external environment has absolutely nothing to do with their poverty?
The rich and poor alike share the same external environment, thus the differentiator is primarily and heavily disposed to be their own failings. Sorry snowflakes, but in reality you get rewarded for effort and you don't get rewarded for lack of effort. In nature you'd just be dead, so first world "poor" is a pretty cushy place to land for zero effort.
Would you concede that there are systemic factors that severely hinder poor people escaping their poverty?
Taxes probably don't help much, but that is why they should be kept low. Other than that, there is no systemic system that penalises their efforts to increase their own wealth. There's also no actual poverty, at least not in the UK. Not real poverty.
Likewise, do you believe that rich people are rich because of their hard work and endeavour *and nothing else*?
I'm self made wealthy. When I worked all the hours I worked, did all the extra studying for all the additional qualifications, and when I'm at my desk putting in the effort and putting up with the shit, society was and is nowhere to be found. Who else do you feel is responsible for my success? It wasn't you. It wasn't your mates. And it wasn't "the poor".
How do you feel about the lazy rich?
Ambivalent. They cost me nothing. They're financially free, so can be as lazy as they choose. Its a benefit of ebing rich, not just a benefit.
Does a lazy rich person deserve his/her wealth more than a hard-working poor person?
The lazy rich person owns their wealth. It isn't costing the rest of us a penny. They deserve to own what they own absolutely. Your moral judgements regarding how they waste their time are irrelevant because you're not paying for it.
Just how much of what I earn do you feel entitled to, and why? If you don't make the effort then you don't get the rewards. It's simple and its fair.
When it comes to AI research the West is winning, the East is rising and women are being left behind
FFS Register, get a grip!
Diversity in AI has always been pretty poor and the field has attempted to fix this and lots of different support groups like Women in Machine Learning (WiML), AI4ALL, and Black in AI have popped up to increase outreach. But it’s still heavily dominated by men.
So what? It's a career choice anyone with enough brains can freely choose to make and enter. If the people freely choosing to do so are predominantly straight white men, then so what? Contrary to the emotive nonsense spaffed all over the media these days, balls are not a birth defect and nor is white skin.
On average, a whopping 80 per cent of AI professors are male in top universities across US and Europe. Applications for AI-related jobs in America were more likely to be made by men, as they made up about 71 per cent of the application pool.
So its clear then that the blame for this situation lies with the women not applying for these jobs?
It’s not all bad news, however.
It's not actually bad news at all. People are free to choose what education they want and which career to persue. If any given career choice is predominnatly made by one subgroup of the population, then so what?
My career success has come as a direct result of my own efforts. It hasn't disadvantaged anyone at any step of the way. I'm tired of being protrayed in the media as some sort of pantomine villain, just because I didn't give my job to a one legged black lesbian, whether she wanted it or not.
The Register used to publish far less emotive and far better reasoned articles than this. What is going wrong?
Re: Assange is a political prisoner, in the United Kingdom, end of
I suspect in YOUR world, albeit it one you absorbed from the MSM without question, is that 9/11 was as it happened according to the MSM
Seriously, can you tinfoil hatters move on to something else and give this a rest? You have no idea how offensive it is to those of us that were in lower Manhattan that day to have your sort witter on about this in fact free ignorance of the actual events.
Arf arf, well done crapita
I'm proud that Capita will be the first company in decades to appoint employees to its board
At first, I'm thinking ok, which board? And which board meetings do they attend? Surely contentious stuff will just move to the pre-meeting or post-meeting where the plebs won't attend. But no, read on and this gem awaits...
The new members will be paid the same annual fee and expenses as other non-exec directors: £64,500.
In essence then, get paid 4 or 5 times your market rate for an opportunity literally no other employer will ever give you, and in return all you have to do is play nice. That, and hope the shareholders don't vote you down at the next AGM.
I can only imagine the giggles when this little agenda item came up at the last board meeting.
Re: Major companies only?
My employer (me) has an office ten yards from my front door. No fuss if I'm 'late' in. Great coffee and use of fridge for snacks whenever. No problems with bringing my cat to work. Holidays whenever I like. The right to turn down jobs I don't like the look of. Only downside is the wages, but money isn't everything. That beats all the ones mentioned.
It's just a shame your boss is an asshole.
Bollocks. EBTs were the subject of loophole legislation since at least 2010. It's just that the legal rulings and multiple appeals have taken this long. So HMRC have been saying 'this is tax fraud' for at least eight years of that decade. Now there are legal judgments that say 'yes, it is tax fraud'. Pay up.
DavCrav and I agree on little, most especially when it comes to matters of tax. I'm perfectly peachy with tax avoidance (not evasion), whereas I suspect DavCrav is less at the "all is well" end of the spectrum of avoidance. However, on this we actually agree. These schemes, no matter who used them, were transaprently obviously about evading tax and those now caught should rightly be paying the bill and the penalties.
No IT contractor should be hiding behind the sick and the lame on this one. Get out front and centre and accept that you tried to evade tax and got caught. Man up, as the phrase goes. You're not some minimum wage imbecile who didn't know what they were signing, you were well aware and perfectly capable of finding out, that these schemes were not avoiding anything, they were evading it.
Again, no legitimate tax pro would have been pushing an EBT for someone whose primary income derived fromt he UK while they were ordinarily resident here. Footballers & movie stars who make image rights internationally etc, yes, maybe. But not someone working a normal job.
Re: also Christa Ackroyd
I'm pretty sure everyone will try to maximise their income. Some will do it legally, others illegally. The problem is when the employers say there's nothing immorral about it.
Tax has a legal component to it, but never a moral one. Your moral framework is different to mine and mine is different to the next blokes. So it goes. Thus there can never be a moral component to tax.
Tax gets spent on things one person may fundamentally diagree with, that another person may strongly support - nulcear weapons or the NHS spring to mind. It can't be immoral to avoid giving money for something you have moral objections against. Thus, there is no moral component to tax - only what is legally due is legally due - the art is to know where the line between avoidance and evasion lies.
Re: And care workers, supply teachers, couriers...
A lot of minimum-wage and zero-hours workers have been forced into these and similar arrangements so their employer can avoid/evade national insurance and similar.
No they haven't. EBTs cost money to run. Granted, not enough money to indicate competence, but money nonetheless.
Minimum wage isn't worth avoiding tax on. Some companies using a lot of gig economy staff may insist people incorporate, but that isn't to slim down on NI contributions, it's to avoid an employer-employee relationship in which employment rights exist.
You get what you pay for....
others who felt they had been incorrectly caught in the net of tax rules, such as IR35, thought they might be a legitimate way of paying the right amount to the taxman.
No they didn't. Literally only an idiot could possibly have consider that these tax evasion schemes were a legitimate way of paying the right amount of tax. The whole advertising premise of them was to avoid paying tax and how much tax you could save. Anyone claiming they thought it a legitimate way to pay the right amount of tax is too stupid to be in charge of their own financial affairs and must be made a ward of court.
These include things like an Employee Benefits Trust – which is used by businesses to receive a tax deduction and pay funds were paid to employees as non-taxable loans.
Anyone using an EBT to evade tax should rightly expect a stiff penalty and back taxes applied to the start of the trust. These were transparently obviously designed to evade tax rather than avoid it. The whole idea was to change taxable income into non-taxable income. Anyone claiming ignorance of this cannot be rightly considered to be in full charge of their mental faculties, or a fit and proper person to manage their own finances.
He emphasised the UK tax collector should tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance
That is what they are doing in this instance.
I'll be the first to admit the tax avoidance industry doesn't have a great reputation - some dislike it morally, others because there's too many cowboys slinging evasion schemes such as those detailed in the article. There isn't a single tax-pro would credible claim they didn't expect some, most, or all of the EBT schemes to get called in, and given Gordon Brown introduced the retrospective tax legislation when he was chancellor, few who can claim they were unaware of it or its intended use.
I dislike most taxes and consider the tax burden far too high for a productive economy (you can't tax your way into prosperity), however, tax evasion is illegal, and in terms of reducing the tax burden, unneccessary. People caught in these schemes were allowing greed to trump reason, and they have been caught. I'm sorry to say that I have no sympathy. Tax arbitrage isn't intended for retail, you need to involve expensive international components if you're going to do it properly (legally and so you don't get back taxed later). Avoiding taxes ordinarily incurs a loss rate of up to 10% plus fees, if you want a simple structure that keeps the fees low. Anything promising near 100% returns is obviously dodgy.
I work in the field, so I'm no lefty "all property is theft" type, but seriously, anyone claiming they thought this was avoidance not evasion is living in a fantasy land.
I wonder whether you would agree that, for instance, daubing racist graffiti on someone's door, in human excrement, would be deliberately causing offence
It's criminal damage for sure, but ultimately while the offender hopes the victim to be offended, only the victim can choose to be so. It's not within the offenders gift to ensure.
you'd have a hard time defending that position in front of a magistrate.
Quite rightly so, but not because of any offense the victim perceived, but because it's a clear cut case of criminal damage, which is what you'd actually be charged with.
can cause offense
Offence can never be caused; it's a choice the offended person always makes to be offended. I can't possibly know what you might find offensive vs the next snowflake in line, so it's really up to you to choose not to be offended by things.
That we've allowed ourselves to be driven so far down this utterly barking mad road of allowing "you" to retrospectively flag something that offends you when it's too late for me to not say it and was previously unknowable to me that you might choose to find it offensive, is the biggest risk to society we face. Once everyone chooses to be offended all the time, in a game of oversensitive oneupmanship, then no progress will be possible.
Re: Isn't it bad?
No that isn't sufficient, they will need humans to watch each video before it can be put on Youtube.
I must have missed that part of Article 13. Please can you provide a citation?
If a law is impossible to follow then it is a bad law, what if we made a law that required drug companies to cure cancer in the next 12 months and then prosecuted them when they failed to do so, would you still say 'well they should have followed the law'.
You're assuming they'd fail at the challenge. There's simply no way of knowing for sure what would happen if the entire industry was forced into a farm bet on a single outcome - certainly more progress would be made more quickly than in any other scenario.
Re: Isn't it bad?
Article 13 will require Google to watch and vet every video before it can be put on Youtube, that is impossible for Google to do, they simply can't afford to hire enough people to do that.
I'm not sure which of your misunderstandings to correct first....
Ok, the money one, because its easiest. Google can afford to hire enough people to vet the content in real time - they make billions upon billions of profit per year, while employing some of the smartest people on the planet, and that is why I am a Google shareholder.
3,504,000 hours per year roughly if they vetted everything, but they don't need to because inane annoyances such as most of their contributors don't upload copyrighted material - they upload (un)original nonsense.
The amount of material that would need to be viewed manually is tiny. You've assumed there's no technical solution when there is - shazam manages to identify music mostly accurately and so you can clearly have a bot scan the audio at upload time. Same thing for the video data.
The solution is readily automatable, its just that Google doesn't want to do it - presumably to protect its collective interests; legislators are well known for salami slicing their way towards what would have been an unachievable goal if asked for in one lump, so the only way to resist them is to fight against every slice.
The purpose of unilateral action is to encourage the OECD/G20 to get their finger out. If nobody says we're going to do it anyway, the Americans can keep stalling and nothing gets done.
Last time this thread came up I explained at length why nothing (positive) is going to get done with the DST or rEU variants. Only an OECD level setup might work. That post is quoted at the bottom of my reply.
There's already so many loopholes in the DST proposals that those of us in the field are already so confident that we can structure around it that our only concern is the cost to the country of trying to make it work and inadvertently walloping domestic firms that were never the intended targets.
Any content publisher (Oxford press etc) will have content, a search engine, and users. They're far more likely to be hit with DST than Google is.
We will literally be spending a lot of money developing and trying to collect this tax, and we'll never raise more than it costs us. It's a waste of money on political engineering.
1. DST is only intended to run until OECD/G20 tax comes in.
2. DST is in consultation with a 2020 implementation date.
3. OECD is in consultation also with a 2020 implementation date.
4. DST has a "safe harbour" exemption for those of a loss making persuasion.
5. There is no requirement to have a legal entity registered in the UK in order to have a web site accessible from the UK.
6. DST is intended to raise £400M
7. We have no means of determining how much Google makes from UK search Vs its Android division or any of the other letters in the Alphabet Soup.
Thus, we can determine the following opinions:
DST will cost the Treasury a lot of money (fact 1) and in all likelihood raise nothing because we'll implement OECD by the time DST is ready (facts 2 & 3).
Amazon won't pay a penny in DST because it makes a loss (facts 4 & 7). Google can probably restructure to achieve the same thing (facts 5 & 7). Apple might take a hit, but barely; we can't actually force companies to register for some type of self assesment by which we could calculate their DST if they don't require a physical presence here.
They're avoiding what is frankly a trivial tax split between even just the 4 main players (fact 6).
It makes for a good announcement but will in all likelihood either only raise revenue from unintended targets (How many web sites have a search feature that isn't google? Digital publishing step right up), or would in any case raise less than MPs spend on their pensions.
You're also preaching to the wrong person, I'm a kind of socialist
There's only one kind of socialist: An idiot.
Socialism has failed everywhere and everytime it has been tried the whole world over. The only system that has ever actually lifted people out of poverty enmasse is capitalism. Capitalism works. Whatever replaces it won't be the intellectually and morally bankrupt failures of the past (socialism and communism).
capitalism doesn't work in it's current form
Capitalism is fair. One set of rules to the game and equality of opportunity for all. Equality of outcome (socialism) is not only a pipedream that can never work, but it is also deeply destructive, unfair, and frankly, highly undesireable.
Capitalism is why the western nations make up the richest portion of the world. Socialism and dictatorships are the primary reasons the rest of the world is poor.
or are we going to talk about the non-existent trickle down economy?
Yawn. This. Again. Trickle down economics does not mean that because I may be a millionaire this year, you will be a millionaire next year, without making significant sacrifices and effort.
Trickledown economics means that because I earn whatever I earn then spend some in a restaurant, the waiter, chef etc all get to earn whatever they earn. Further, that because of hedonic regression, the lifestyle available to you on an average wage is likely to be better in places than the lifestyle available to yesterdays rich man - in door plumbing was not available at any price 400 years go. Todays Fiesta with Mountune pack is faster, more reliable, and more practical than the rich mans Ferrari of the early 80s.
I realise this is directly in opposition to whatever your union rep may tell you, but there's a reason why they're a union rep and not working in a very successful (and lucrative) career in the City. I understand this stuff a tad better than they do.
Should we pay tax while corporations shift it around and pay none or move it to a country with the lowest rate?
In the really real world, where people are fundamentally competetive rather than cooperative, then what we should do is lower corporation tax to increase our slice of the global pie. Counterintuitive as it may be, from where we are on the laffer curve, the only way to increase the tax take is to lower taxes. Squeezing harder just chokes the life out of the economy, which is what we've been witnessing this past decade or so.
If the government is misusing it then that's up to us as the electorate to sort that out.
Unfortunately the electorate won't, because the don't understand economics or finance. On average, the electorate are stupid.
Regardless unless all EU tax laws are aligned it will never work and that's not going to happen.
What possible benefit do you see in aligning EU tax laws? Absent global cooperation, the only way to increase your corporation tax rates isn't with more aggressive collection, it's with a globally competetive rate. Even if all the EU aligned, people would still funnel revenue off shore. You can't tax a loss.
I work in tax arbitrage for a living and so I can pretty much guarantee I know a lot more about this than any other commentard. There is one other who posts, whom I won't name, that gives away a deeper understanding than the others, deep enough that I suspect an industry peer or colleague.
Codejunky has things pretty accurate. Tax is taken from the private sector employees and spent on public sector employees and infrastructure, in the main. The money doesn't belong to the tax man, it belongs to the individual or company earning the money. The tax is forced sequestration. You can argue about the extent of the need for taxes (too much waste/need more investment), but arguing about what tax is remains futile and wrong.
If tax were spent efficiently and correctly, payment of it would be voluntary. That it is compelled with menaces rather gives away the game as to how wisely the people paying the tax consider it is being spent.
Re: Get me a babysitter
The reason children and teens and young adults support PewDiePie is because he is the last good thing on the internet.
Really? The last good thing? The final one?
Have you perhaps considered that maybe you could use the internet to, I dunno, learn stuff? Head over to coursera and pick up some knowledge from people that actually have some. Maybe you could pop over to github/other and get involved in a hackathon, creating something of value to a worthy charity or two? Or maybe you could hit once of the finance sites and learn about how money actually works, when you have to work for it?
The internet has many good things on it. PDP ain't one of them.
Re: Get me a babysitter
This is the difference between mainstream media fodder like you and people who seek the actual truth of things. If you're looking at anywhere but his channel PewDiePie will seem like a loud, arrogant, "goofy" douchebag, but if you took the time to actually look you'd see that Felix Kjellberg is an intelligent innovator that simply makes money doing what he loves; making skits, reviewing books, reviewing memes and giving his take on events on the platform (then occasionally playing some games).
He may very possibly be intelligent, but only if your definition of intelligent is "Intelligent relative to a very very stupid person". Sorry kiddo, but no matter how many accounts you set up here to troll us, PweDiePie just is not what we'd consider smart, clever, or intelligent.
We seem to have an infestation of the under 12s, or whatever demented and hapless demographic this particular tuber spends his days targetting. Any chance the admins could pause the new account creation until the tantrum blows over? I've no idea what a t-series is, but it's probably time to subscribe to their channel.
Re: Get me a babysitter
Circle Jerk communities like this don't take kindly to alternative points of view.
This is true, they don't. However, in defence of this specific "circle jerk" community, it's made up of generally successful people within the IT community, and given that all credible reports of the mean IQ of software industry types, its safe to assume the jerks in this circle are a shade smarter than average.
Given that you tube mostly plays to the cheap seats and ALL of its most popular videos and channels are aimed squarely at the back half of the bell curve, you might find it instructional to consider that these aforementioned jerks, are likely smarter than Felix.... just not as well known or rich. And certainly smarter, and richer than the great majority of his followers.
So, the real question is why someone would set up a brand new account here to rail against one specific article, fairly maligning one specific you tuber known for idiocy and decidedly low brow "entertainment"? I've avoided the word juvenille thus far, but I'm struggling to be honest.
I do give you credit, for attracting the most downvotes in the history of this particular "circle jerk", that I can recall seeing. Believe me, it's quite an achievment.
Re: About to TUPE to this crowd
I'm about to TUPE over to DXC
It's been a while since I read the regs, but at least you probably have two years of income security to look forward to and that'll give you plenty of time to train up and ship out ahead of what I'd bet now will be an unpleasant third year.
Beer, for all those soon to lose their jobs, and best wishes to find something better soon.
I do not think that I have ever heard of someone being given a couple of hours notice and a rounded offer to quit.
Standard operating procedure in the City. Redundancies are (almost) always via way fo a compromise agreement, which is what this sounds like.
I'm not specifically defending or condeming the practice, only offering that it's fairly routine for large companies and in some industries.
Re: No matter what happens
Google is going to lose many of its best and brightest over this.
It's a top flight employer. There's more people want to work there than vacancies for people to do so. Google knows that.
At the end of the day, as a shareholder, I appoint Googles board of directors to determine how the company is ran; not the employees, they're simply hired to achieve the vision. I realise that offends a lot of you, but it's the same where I work too - the shareholders, whomever they are, vote to (re)appoint board members, who select at CEO to achieve certain corporate goals (dirty capitalist words like profit and growth); "my" shareholders presume if I don't like that I'm free to find somewhere else to work.
One of the biggest problems many young people have is confusion over their right to have an opinion, the time to keep that opinion to themselves, and the weight the rest of us should ascribe to their opinions: The staff instructing the management team is the tail wagging the dog I'm afraid.
Let the (red) arrows fly if you must, but they won't change the facts.
Re: No matter what happens
The number is expected to keep rising for at least a few more years before leveling off.
Indeed. Voice interfaces, however invasive of privacy we consider them to be, will lead to an explosion in internet & search related activity because users will be interacting with them without requiring screen time.
Re: My advice to Google employees
but good luck finding one that would then tolerate the open dissent to its business decisions that (so far) Google has allowed. In the real (outside Silicon Valley) world these employees could be in for a very nasty shock.
Quite. In the banks for which I have worked their actions to date would have been considered gross professional misconduct and they'd have been dismissed. Depending on your politics you may agree with such employee behaviour or disagree with it, but either way, you won't find many employees at many large businesses behaving in this manner.
Q: If Pesky Pepper had a peek at patient papers, at how many patient papers did Pesky Pepper peek? A: 231
Re: Please let me know where you work...
your employer has said "Oh an AIDS test... you must be a druggie, you're fired
Boris, I totally agree with your post and have upvoted it.
However, the part I've quoted might vary more than many people realise. I've had an AIDS test, at a previous employers insistance. It was part of their hiring criteria, because they were privately funding life insurance for us and wanted to rule out pre-existing conditions that may have affected it. As you'll realise, this was a couple of decades ago.
So, yes, the receptionist should be punished because what she did was very wrong. However, not all employers will react badly - though she had no way of knowing how anyones employer would react.
Re: Lazy thinking
Exactly how many globally-significant professional boxers have globally-significant Oxford and Cambridge produced?
Are you missing the point deliberately, or have you been hit in the head too much?
The point is that not all boxers are thick. Thick people don't gain entry to elite universities and gain sought after places on their competetive teams.
As you demonstrate admirably, it is more than possible to be stupid and not box. You're seeing causation where only weak correlation exists.
He even scored a celebrity endorsement from the partially eared three-time world heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield, although why you'd trust the perspicacity of someone who used to get punched in the head for a living escapes us.
Yawn. So all boxers / combat sportsmen are thick? Care to explain why globally significant universities such as Oxford or Cambridge usually have a boxing team? Or why both Klitschko brothers have PhD's? Sterotyping is lazy and often wrong.
Right, so you propose an end to privacy for burger munchers, and a national database that will in practical terms identify their eating habits, movements, all added to the existing CCTV surveillance, just to address the problem of littering?
Between ANPR, your mobile phone, and your VISA history, they already have that data. There is literally no new data added in the mix, save potentially what you ordered, and I presume McDs know that already.
There's no new privacy invasion here - you already freely give that data to the state now. Of course, if you walk there without your phone and pay by cash you might have a point, but you'll still be able to do that with the face printing anyway. Just take your rubbish home and burn it - no DNA, fingerprints, or facial images left behind.
Should the bin get knocked over, escape whilst being moved from recepticle to transport, fly away in the wind at the recycling plant/tip etc, you would still be fingered for it.
Well, yes, but it would still be MY rubbish. As it'd only be a proportionate fine and an extremely rare occurrance, I think I could live with it. The window of opportunity for a bin incident is small, if we round up to 1% of disposals result in a bin problem, I'd have to eat drive thru McDs on average twice a week to get fined once per year.
Have a small fine for every piece of litter linked to that franchise that encourages them to push back to customers to encourage more social behaviour.
Good idea - fine both the customer and the vendor. That way the vendors will eventually bar irresponsible customers, so even if the fines go unpaid (don't they all when on welfare), there's still an incentive not to be untidy scum.
The face and number plate of a McDonald's Drive-Thru customers are printed on the burger packaging at times of purchase.
That, Sir, is absolute genius. Even the most hard of thinking chav will preumably recognise their own mugshot on the wrapper.
Perhaps this could be linked to a publicly available and uptodate register of addresses, and also print their address onto the wrapper. That way if it turns up in your garden, you may return it to them.
See this, Google? Microsoft happy to take a half-billion in sweet, sweet US military money to 'increase lethality'
What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Microsoft went for the contract at all given an increasing level of upset among employees of tech companies that their employers are taking money from companies that want to use their handiwork to more efficiently kill other human beings.
Has the author failed to engage their brain before writing this?
Take two armies, any two, and position them within shooting range of each other and declare war upon each other. What you'll get is dead soldiers. Developing tech for your side that is better than that available to the other just means more of the dead are wearing their uniform than are wearing yours.
The only way to change the absolute number of dead soldiers, is to kill all of theirs before they kill many of yours, potentially producing a reduction in the total number of dead soldiers.
Abolition of warfare is not within the gift of software developers to give. It just isn't.
Re: Article unclear!
In this context what does "protected disclosures' and 'suffered detriments" mean?
Protected disclosure is a legal term with specific meaning, as is suffered detriments. I'll not paraphrase the facts as IANAL and may lead you astray. Terms may be found below:
Hope that helps.
Re: Would have expected this from a luser.
But from a fscking infosec 'consultant'? HACKED YOU SAY?
Okay, test your own defenses!
I've upvoted you because I agree with what you say, however, it may also be fair to reflect on the fact that this was a trainee infosec consultant and so the usual expectations of cabaility may not apply.
Re: Advocatus Diaboli
Isn't this the sort of privileged life story we're supposed to look back on with, at best, mixed feelings nowadays?
Why on earth would you think that? The war generation are worthy of your respect. No caveats. No buts.
What exactly did she do for the Tories to get her title?
Probably a damn sight more than Chakrabarti did in the peeragewash.
Baroness Trumpington did a damn sight more for this country than I suspect you or I will ever do. So if you want to make empty headed, ignorant, and fact free lefty rants, facebook is over there --->
Re: The New Feudalism
Basic mathematics ensures nothing.
As far as wrong statements go, this might be winner of the week.
The sort of people in the top 1% aren't generally the sort of people that will just deposit their money in bonds and live off the interest, as you claim.
I completely agree, which is why I made no such claim.
Equally, they're the sort of people that have a lot of stuff - houses that cost a lot more than most, cars that cost more than most (and more of them), and other stuff, that they could sell if they went bust, and still remain in the top 1%.
You've succomb to the numerous fallacies present in the works of Piketty and Stiglitz.
Hardly. I'm a full blooded capitalist. It's the greatest game in town. Piketty started with his conclusion and then sought only evidence which backed it. A typical fallacy of the economically socialist left.
According to the IFS, I'm in danger of being in the top 1% at the moment. I'm not sure I believe their numbers - apparently you only need 1 million USD of investable assets. Given how mobile most of my assets are, I've already taken steps to diversify away from the UK to protect against a potential far left government. As soon as McMao started talking about seizing 10% of the FTSE, I dumped it and put the money elsewhere. I'm up about 20% on that trade so far - it was more but the markets have had a wobble. Am I in danger of going bust or losing most of my wealth? Hardly.
My point was that its going to be very dificult for anyone on minimum wage to catch up to me - I make too much passive income for that to happen. You've fallen for the trap of assuming I see that as a bad thing, when I don't. I used to earn way below minimum wage too, before there ever was one, and I managed to work my way up the earnings and wealth scale. There's nothing, literally nothing, holding back anyne else from doing as I did. They just have to stop investing their time in moaning about the system, and start spending their time understanding how it actually works.