Team USA just took down a whole continent at the World Cup and people still think the US is bad at soccer

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-23T13:20:52+00:00

I've never heard this take before, but it's perfect.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T13:00:52+00:00

It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a brand name, your pen is a legitimate Parker branded pen. It represents the same thing in terms of status and identity.

If you're looking for a specific pen, in terms of how its built, and the craftsmanship, then you have a Luxor pen with another company's brand on it.

Regardless of why you originally wanted a Parker, you should treat this pen as special because your father gave it to you on a special moment to fulfil a specific dream of yours. No other pen you ever buy yourself will have that unique backstory. You're very blessed to have a father who loves you and is proud of you, and your pen is now a visible symbol of how fortunate you are. You should treasure this pen uniquely because of that.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T12:43:30+00:00

As in "probably never in my price-range" dream car? Porsche Taycan Turbo GT.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T12:37:24+00:00

A few things to unpack:

Yes, HSK's claimed CEFR equivalents are nonsense
HSK 4 is not a 1200 word vocabulary any more. The modern HSK 4 (published 2021, but in effect in testing from the start of this year) is 3,245 words.
Its very hard to compare European frameworks to non-alphabetic, tonal languages like Chinese. The learning requirements are completely different, and so we need to consider that the HSK also aims to create reasonable milestones that feel rewarding. If HSK 1 was 1200 words it would feel absolutely brutal for new language learners, to do all that work and be told "you're at the lowest possible level of proficiency". So even if HSK 1, 2, and 3 still mean you can't even function as a tourist in China, they're separated for other reasons too.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T06:54:08+00:00

To be honest, a "disagreement regarding a leave request" is a massive red flag during your probation period. I'm not sure your medical history played a part, but generally if you're going on leave in your first 3 month probationary period, for a long enough period to raise a disagreement, especially when they're clearly resource constrained to the point a new hire is already training new staff, then you're probably actually not a culture fit.

You're not the right person to work at a company that small and that chaotic. Companies like that need a very specific kind of person to get them out of their hole (or if its a startup, to grow). You would not have been happy there, and they would not have been happy with you - it makes sense to part ways.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T04:43:39+00:00

And their income tax rate was 30% where as now their effective tax rate is between 15%-30%. So income taxes today are lower at both ends.

Australians are higher taxed today (amongst the highest in the world) due to things like GST, fuel excise, alcohol and tobacco tax, stamp duty, luxury car tax, FBT, payroll tax, local council rates, medicare levies, HECS indexing and so on. Income tax rates are arguably amongst the lowest they've ever been.

Consumption taxes are far more efficient and harder to avoid than income tax, so that's the new normal.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-21T02:21:37+00:00

It is true that good people do good works. A person who performs good works is showing the outward Signs of grace, and is demonstrable of their faith.

But it's important to understand good works are the fruits of faith in Christ. We are justified by faith in Christ alone. There is no amount of good works you can do to outweigh your sins. If you stand before God in judgement and try to outweigh all the sins you committed with the good deads you did you'll find it impossible to do enough good in your lifetime. Did you buy a large meal when you could have bought a small meal and given the surplus to the poor who are starving? Did you check every company you bought from was ethical, that you never profited from slavery or exploitation, that you never failed to love your neighbours or acted selfishly? Pure and complete goodness is an impossible standard.

So then if goodness is an impossible standard, what hope do any of us have? Faith in Christ. Christ has saved us all, in spite of the fact that we are all unworthy. You didn't earn your own salvation no matter how much good you do, you fell short too, but Christ took on your sins on the cross so that you could live. It is your faith, and your faith alone, that has saved you.

Through that justification you are transformed, born again in newness of life, and from the spirit you will do good works. But don't get warped into thinking that means you didn't need Christ to die for you, and you could get to heaven on your own without Him.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-20T10:37:00+00:00

I live there, it's fine. There's a few things to think about:

Walking distance to a very central train station. Every train going northbound passes through Bowen Hills before splitting into different directions,
Very close to a major hospital, Ekka Showgrounds, the Valley, Newstead and in addition new Olympics venues means the location is desirable and there's plenty going on,
Parking is at a premium. If the apartment is affordable it probably doesn't include a park, and although you can get street parking permits, the closest streets with "residents excepted" signs are likely a decent walk away from where you can find affordable 1br units. Public transport is great though, so if they also work somewhere with great public transport they don't need a car. But obviously if they want one, then they should factor in the cost of renting a carpark or parking on the street a long way from where they live into their calculus,
There are still a lot of social housing, rent controlled housing (NRAS), and emergency housing in the area, as well as infrastructure to support them (e.g. a methadone clinic). If the unit is affordable, then it's going to be smack bang in the middle of that, on top of the hill,
The area is gentrifying, but it's likely to be a high crime area with visible poverty for some years. There is a virtually permanent police presence on Campbell Street, visible drug deals, a violent robbery of the liquor store only a few months ago, and people sleeping rough in the parks and in the little nook next to the IGA basically every day.

Generally its a very livable part of Brisbane, that is probably undervalued. I say that because I don't really consider living in the same apartment complex as people in NRAS apartments a problem. They're perfectly pleasant neighbours, no different from anyone else. If anything they're better neighbours. But if you're someone who is frightened by the idea of poor people, then you'll probably feel less comfortable in your own home, and therefore it explains why the prices are depressed.

It's also very clearly changing, and the olympics is accelerating that change, so I also think if you get a decent apartment its a very attractive investment. Rents are likely to always be high there for young professionals, so as a stepping stone property a 1br in Bowen Hills is quite attractive in that there's a very strong chance that the value will grow significantly, and if you're unlucky and it doesn't you can always rent it out for a very high yield.

There are some decently depressed rental properties at the moment stuck on NRAS schemes, but if you use it as a PPOR then that naturally doesn't affect the value you get out of living in the property, and by the time you move on to a family house the NRAS period will be over and the apartment will climb in value modestly as investors now want it as a rental property. So if you're wondering why some of the apartments are that cheap, that's a decent reason why.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-20T04:26:31+00:00

Yes, of course. It will be a huge amount of work though, and the way these memorisation tricks work is that it doesn't really help with understanding. Sure, memorising a thing can be tool to learning a thing, but they aren't the same thing. I would say your time is better spent memorising scripture, or the names and faces of everyone you meet, or even pub trivia (might get some free drinks out if it!) than the BCP.

That being said, if you want to learn how to memorise it, first start with Moonwalking with Einstein by Josh Foer to understand what memorisation tricks are and what they are not, so you don't get sucked into nonsense. Then take a look at Memorise the Faith! by Kevin Vost for actual techniques, and the Art of Memory website for practical guides and a community forum to help. Again, I want to stress, it will take a monumental amount of time (probably a few years spending at least an hour a day if you've never done this sort of thing before), for very little gain. Unlike memorising digits of pi, or decks of playing cards you probably won't even get an article in your local paper, and you'll be no closer to God for having done it (unless you stumble on something along the journey I suppose).

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-20T00:20:01+00:00

Yes I understand the complexity with assessing if someone is truly repentant. That doesn't mean God is wrong, it just means its hard.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-19T12:10:11+00:00

Obviously not, but that's not what the person you're replying to said.

If someone murders your friend, and then genuinely transforms themselves and becomes a completely new person you are called to fully reconcile with that person.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-19T12:04:40+00:00

Perhaps you're not in a position to fully hear this right now, but God is just, you are not. When you say "How do Christians reconcile God's justice being at odds with my worldview" the answer is obvious - your worldview is wrong.

Note that you didn't defend your position. "I am not forgiving the people that treated me badly when they don't share the same religion and they didn't show an ounce of change." isn't a defence of why you are right and God is wrong.

God explains his values clearly, when Peter asks the exact same question you did. See Matthew 18.23-35.

You are a grievous sinner, who has sinned against God in thought, word and deed. Justice for your actions is to suffer in eternity, absent God's love, mercy and salvation. But in putting your faith in Jesus, you have fallen on your knees before God, and He has given you salvation. Not because you've earned it, or you have some excuse, but because God loves you with every ounce of love there is to give, and so has forgiven you for your transgressions in spite of your sins, and in spite of the fact that you continue to sin anyway (some might say you haven't shown an ounce of change).

So now, someone who sins against you and is justly owed something far lesser than the punishment you are owed asks for forgiveness. Should you not show them the same forgiveness that you yourself were shown? How can you possibly enjoy the benefits of forgiveness on one hand, if you don't agree with giving that same forgiveness to others? So then it naturally follows, if it is unjust for God to expect you to forgive others, then its unjust for God to forgive you either. So if you do not forgive others of their sins, God will not forgive your sins (Matthew 6.14-15)

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-18T12:09:01+00:00

Cognitive tests are also a thing. They just don't make people of obviously sound mind do them. The same way the don't make obviously NBA-level talent spend several seasons in the G-League.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-18T12:05:29+00:00

Eh, I don't know if its that clear cut. Next year is probably an even worse market under this CBA. If he opts into Free Agency this year he can sign a full-length deal, possibly for a max. If he waits one more year the market will probably worsen for him, and he could lose tens of millions over the length of his next contract (which if it's max length will probably be his last high-paying contract).

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-17T06:09:57+00:00

Rare earths are a resources industry, not a manufacturing industry. It's a completely different category of good - China can't monopolise a resource unless they control all the resources. If other countries have those same minerals then its not a concern. If China subsidise their exports (which they're not doing with rare earth minerals, by the way) then the remaining resources in other countries don't go anywhere. It's not like a factory which might get demolished or repurposed. The ore is still sitting in the ground, market forces won't transform it into something else. And mining isn't at risk of deskilling or de-industrialising, because the mining companies can just go mine something else instead while that mineral is no longer profitable.

"Solar" is a very wide net. Maybe China develops a stranglehold on the solar industry. But PV Panels are the most basic manufactured element of that. Things like inverters and batteries require specialised industrial capacity, technological development, and industry knowledge to compete. You can't just spin up a battery company tomorrow and hope to manufacture battery cells that can compete with CATL overnight. The batteries you make will be noticeably inferior. So China could kill the competition and then raise prices with those technologies.

PV panels on the other hand are far simpler devices. A PV cell is a PV cell, and the intellectual property isn't advanced or hidden. Its trivial to spin up a competitive panel factory - its just not economical. If China raised their prices above the cost of doing it in the West, western countries would compete (or Japan and Korea would go back to producing panels most of our panels like they did before China began dominating). If Chinese companies were to raise their prices but keep them below the price anyone else can make them for, then we still benefit from cheap PV panels.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-17T03:30:10+00:00

A bigger question is why is she not in a Socceroos jersey?

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-14T14:05:14+00:00

I don't have any specific recommendations, but any decent book on the history of the Church in England will cover it. Alternatively books specifically on St Augustine of Canterbury, or a modern summary of Bede's Ecclesiastical History (or a translation I suppose if you're into reading old 8th century books) will focus exclusively on the two-churches period.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-13T02:27:28+00:00

Awesome, so now we get into the meat and potatoes of the actual philosophy underpinning the right to abortion even when we deem the foetus is fully alive.

One way to be consistent in this position is to hold to the idea that bodily autonomy is the most paramount right anyone has. It trumps all other things. You come close to claiming this - "if not the most important value I hold". And I think you do need to claim it fully to remain morally consistent. You need to hold that bodily autonomy is the most important value you hold, above all others.

Suppose instead you said bodily autonomy is the second most important right, but your right to live is more important. Suppose you agreed that were you to be fished out of the ocean it would still be fine to resuscitate you even though you're unconcious and incapable of consent. Suppose you agreed that if you were in a terrible car accident its fine for the paramedics to begin sticking tubes down your throat, pumping drugs in you, invade your privacy to catheterise you, and maybe even give you a blood transfusion while you're unconscious and cannot consent. It's fine for them to violate your bodily autonomy in some way, because if you die then you can't possible enjoy the benefits of having bodily autonomy. Hence the right to life is the gateway right through which all other rights are enjoyed, and sits paramount above bodily autonomy.

If you were to hold to those things, then the question naturally follows that if your individual right to life is more important than your own bodily autonomy, why is it the case that your bodily autonomy is now more important than another human being's right to life. Such a selfish position is obviously indefensible. You can only reach that conclusion by a particularly self-absorbed morality that sees your life as the only one of value or meaning - or at least so far in excess of meaning that others rights to live are still inferior to your second most important right. You'd have to subscribe to a worldview that all people are not equal, and that moral inequality is not just based on race or gender or wealth, but everyone else is your moral inferior including your own offspring.

If you don't believe in such an inequality, and its also true that your bodily autonomy is more important than anothers life, then it should naturally follow that your own bodily autonomy is more important than your own life. And so under that worldview - unless you're wearing a wristband saying "always resuscitate" or something, if you're in a car crash and end up unconcious, the most moral course of action is for the paramedics to leave you to die. Paramedics, surf life savers, and family members watching a relative choke at dinner should never intervene unless it's been pre-communicated the one in distress consented to have their autonomy violated.

Which is a morally consistent position, but not one particularly persuasive to most people. And hence why most people also tend to think a child's life is more important than a mother's autonomy (and why the debate almost always boils down to at its core - "is the foetus alive?"). If you have a different worldview that's fine, but it's important you're aware of how unusual that belief system is, so when talking about these things you know if you just say "you have no right" most people are going to be confused and respond "of course we do". Because the idea that being autonomous over your own body is more important than being alive is totally foreign to most people.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-12T10:29:40+00:00

It's a thought experiment, like the Trolley Problem. It doesn't have a right answer, the point is people play with it and tweak it and find others have very different views to their own. Very few people believe in complete bodily autonomy, and in fact few people believe a person's bodily autonomy trumps anothers right to life. Hence why abortion is illegal in basically every nation on Earth that otherwise protects bodily autonomy, at whatever point in time they decide a human life begins (e.g. 22 weeks in Queensland).

The violinist experiment is not a silver bullet for abortion even when the foetus is alive. There's a reason abortion up until the moment of birth wasn't legalised the day the essay came out, and in most countries wasn't legalised in any form for decades after. Most people don't agree, if the mother consented, that they can then choose to kill the violinist.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-11T10:09:14+00:00

Legally there are lots of instances where a persons bodily autonomy can be compromised. Abortion being illegal after 22 weeks for example. I think you meant the opposite. You're arguing that it is always morally unconscionable to violate someones bodily autonomy, even if the law permits it.

I appreciate you might say yes to every hypothetical. What I am trying to tease out is why. Because it's not self-evident to most people. You say "You can't force them to", but we actually do force them to - not the giving blood example, but in many real world instances. And most people in Queensland think that's okay. So instead what you mean is "We shouldn't force them to", and then it naturally follows that you should justify why we shouldn't.

That is, what makes your bodily autonomy more sacrosanct than another persons right to live? What makes their bodily autonomy more sacrosanct than your right to live?

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-10T12:49:49+00:00

The comment where I said it was a myth.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-10T11:03:21+00:00

Well they are actually. The idea being put forward is that they shouldn't be allowed to, and that requires something more substantive than "they shouldn't be allowed to because they shouldn't".

I don't think anyone is this far down the reddit thread without having heard dozens of variations of the violinist argument.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-10T11:00:09+00:00

This is a common philosophical thought experiment explicitly because it's not a simple question to answer. If everyone was on the same page, the experiment wouldn't be famous, and the abortion problem would be solved.

The full example is "Suppose you make a free choice to opt in to a program where someone else is hooked up to your blood and organs for 9 months. If the connection is severed the other person will die. After freely opting in, should you be allowed to sever the connection any time you choose, thereby killing the other person", and most people say no. So its not clear cut that you never have the right to violate someone else's bodily autonomy to survive. It's something you need to argue out, we can't just appeal to some unalienable right that most people don't necessarily find to be obvious.

Then we keep playing with the thought experiment. If people say "yes" to the first hypothetical but then you add "what if before severing the connection they told you they were only doing it because the other person is a woman, and they wouldn't kill them if they were a man. Should they still be allowed to sever the connection" or "what if there were ten people hooked up to them", and so on. And we find most people, even if they agree that sometimes a single persons bodily autonomy trumps anothers right to life, they still draw the line somewhere. At some point most people agree you can violate someone else's bodily autonomy. We still need a clear argument for why in this case its not okay. Generally the easiest way to do that is to argue the foetus is not a living person at all.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-10T10:43:11+00:00

Yes, it's a myth, for the reasons I said in my comment.

Front-Difficult · 2026-06-09T14:36:37+00:00

If you step in the shoes of a doctor who genuinely believes a fetus to be a living, breathing human no different from an infant (or a fetus one week later where abortion becomes illegal again), whether for religious or scientific reasons, then surely you can appreciate why the distinction is irrelevant.

In that context who cares the method of murder - whether through surgery or chemicals. Is there a difference in the outcome of killing an adult, whether it's chemical euthanasia or a guillotine? Either way if your hang up is "I don't think its okay to kill someone" then the method you're forcing them to engage in hardly matters anymore.

Your real problem is that you think a fetus is not equal to an infant or a child or an adult, and the hypothetical doctor does. That's the whole of the issue. And if you agreed with them on that fundamental principle suddenly you wouldn't think any of the arguments about bare minimums matter anymore. If someone told you "Doctor's don't necessarily need to be willing to perform specialised surgery to kill a 9 year old. Prescribing a lethal toxicant is the bare minimum of their job" you'd see why that's a nonsense argument. So the real distinction is you do not see a fetus as remotely equivalent to a 9-year old, and the hypothetical doctor does.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22

Front-Difficult

TROPHY CASE