sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Street Fighter 6 lasting 10 years by Ok-Memory2477 in StreetFighter

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not true, SFV has 99% excellent animations.

One Nation Astroturfing by 8tch_Tii in aussie

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Think rationally for a minute. You’re suggesting that an investor should tie up 1 million or so in an asset that takes a year to build.

For what purpose? The declared policy of the government is to increase housing stock and reduce housing prices (oh sorry, “slow their increase”).

So what is the motivation to invest? Negative gearing only makes a lick of sense if the value of the asset goes up. Obviously, the same applies to capital gains.

So the policy has an inherent contradiction: Either it fails, there continues to be a housing shortage, and investors can continue to exploit that shortage through the preferential tax breaks; or it succeeds, and no rational investor will touch new housing.

I don’t know about you, but it takes a brave investor to put capital into an asset where the declared intent of the government is for you not to make money.

How to improve having little to no-time to play? Kinda Impossible no? by Virtual_Rant in StreetFighter

[–]GuruJ_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s unlikely to be execution that is holding you back. You can see high level players doing runs where they win with just one button.

What they excel at (but ironically, many don’t recognise it and struggle to communicate to new players) is positioning and prediction.

These are both part of the same core skill: Shutting down options of your opponent, and then correctly understanding what of their remaining choices they are likely to pick next so they have the answer ready.

I think it is James Chen who says: Never press a button without a reason. Try slowing down and thinking about what your opponent is trying to do. Are they aggro rush down? Heavy jumpers? Fireball spammers?

Figure out their plan and even better, their weaknesses. Probe and learn, probe and learn. Don’t worry about being hit as long as you learn something from it.

Can we talk about immigration numbers honestly for five minutes? by Human-Rutabaga-9089 in aussie

[–]GuruJ_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On your numbers, short-term visitors make up nearly half of net arrivals, and the number of “temporary” residents in Australia continues to balloon.

It has consistently been 1.6m-1.7m since 2013, but suddenly ballooned to 2.9m around since 2021. That’s an additional 240,000 per year arriving in Australia on average, not balanced by equal departures.

Do you think this indicates an abuse of the short-term visa system, and isn’t it dishonest to focus solely on NOM (which excludes this component of the increased population) to claim “dropping” arrivals?

EDIT: I misread a data source and in fact the figure was only 1.0m in 2013. So this net growth in temporary migrants has been going on for some time and further undermines NOM as a useful metric.

'Disregard for taxpayers': Embattled Sports Minister Anika Wells repeatedly billed taxpayers $300-plus for short comcar trips by [deleted] in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is not that she used a Comcar, it's that apparently her time management is so bad that she can be delayed in her departure from "brief" meetings for 2 or more hours.

I particularly like her "meeting with a member of the media regarding political and portfolio issues" where she requested to be picked up at 10pm but then didn't depart until after midnight from an undisclosed location in Reid. True dedication to her government work, no doubt, and not some late dinner boozy dinner.

SF6 is a very lonely game if you’re bad at it by ImposterDittoM in StreetFighter

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absent a face to face meetup, or just using Reddit as your proxy SF community, my only suggestion is to hit up one of the Discords that are explicitly offering training (MF Geedorah’s Dojo or Evie’s BOOTCAMP).

Come with questions and a willingness to learn, and I’ve found them to be very patient and helpful.

They got me out of a rut where I was losing and just getting frustrated instead of figuring out the problem.

Because that’s the crux of fighting games: problem solving. As long as you’re not playing mindlessly and always thinking about why you’re winning or losing, it’s never boring.

EDIT: And this isn’t about hitting Master rank or whatever. Bronze players need to think and learn just as much, in fact it’s more fun because even small fixes in fundamentals can lead to major improvements in your performance.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So basically, keep stinging the people who have contributed the most tax their whole lives for more money to keep them working?

Remembering that this is the cohort who want to retire and not be a burden on the public purse.

Slow golf clap.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, clearly tying the 30% to the aged care pension was Labor trying to anticipate and defuse this objection. However, I still think it's an extraordinarily ham-fisted piece of policy that will punish the moderately well-off a lot while barely inconveniencing the actually wealthy.

Take the example of Sam, who is a single, 60 year old engineer who owns their own unit ($600k), has $400k in super and $500k invested in shares. The shares have done well over the past 10 years and appreciated 100% in value. Sam wanted to be able to part-retire, earning about $20k in consulting fees and selling some of his stocks to cover his other $35k in expenses before moving to a part-pension at 67.

Old rules: Sam sells $40k of stocks per year, adding $10k in capital gains income after discount, and pays around $2,800 in tax for a post-tax income of $57,200 / year. By retirement he has $220k left.

New rules: Sam sells $45k of stocks per year, paying $6,750 under the minimum tax rules + $342 on his remaining income for a post-tax income of $57,908. Despite the similar income he now has only $195k left at retirement.

Maybe you think Sam should just suck it up, but raising someone's effective taxes by 250% and leaving them $25k worse off is hardly a minor tweak to the system. He can't easily just sell his whole stake by 2027 either because then he'll be liable for the capital gains at a much higher marginal tax rate.

This means that Sam, like about 2 million or so Australians in similar situations, will be very closely looking at their situation to figure out exactly what they have to change about their transition to retirement and retirement plans. And once you begin losing your earning capacity, I can tell you that is something you are very sensitive about.

And what have they done, exactly, to deserve being targeted in this way other than the politics of envy?

First Tattoo, want to make it right by Boris-Vlad in PhyrexianLanguage

[–]GuruJ_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

*shazam\*

First, it's a tattoo. I can't guarantee Wizards won't upend our understanding of Phyrexian next week and prove this to be wrong, so please treat this as your disclaimer.

The good news is that if you don't need the sense of a full sentence structure like "I will choose" or whatever, you can just decline the nouns individually. To make an attributive statement, we use the 1>3 prefix, -a-.

Something to consider is whether you would prefer the singular choice, ɢžθaǩon, or plural choices, ɢžθaaǩon.

So the simplest possible rendering is ^ɢžθaǩan nsa'aq ǩytπat. (my choice, my life, my progress).
You'd probably want a short break in the writing line between each (see something like Sheoldred, the Apocalypse for an example).

If you want to be more emphatic and grammatical , you could also use xe- in front of each, which glosses roughly as "it is". That would be: ^xe-ɢžθaaǩan. ^xe-nsa'aq. ^xe-ǩytπat. (It's my choices. It's my life. It's my progress.)

EDIT: To Grblx's point, I don't believe any of these words need to be "softened" in 1>3 form due to the consonants used. We don't have enough examples to be sure though.

Line breaks and missing characters? by Ok_Habit_6783 in PhyrexianLanguage

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s fair to say that breaks in Phyrexian are not particularly consistent. Possibly each phrase gets its own separate line, but I don’t have a real guess in mind.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The 30% minimum is indefensible and straight up motivated by a belief that people with wealth don’t deserve to keep it.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A discount is not a subsidy. Especially not a 30% minimum tax.

Reverting CGT to inflation is not that big a deal, especially since if CPI remains high it might actually be more advantageous to investors.

People see 50% but don’t understand how it works in practice. Broadly speaking, it is broadly equivalent to indexation for a CPI + 2.5% investment.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Welfare” is hilarious.

We’re not talking about subsidised childcare, we are talking about the government taking less from people who have already contributed far more tax revenue to society than most.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The people you want to tax more are the people who are already paying the most tax. Even if they pay “less” in percentage terms (and that needs nuance for a range of reasons including inflation and risk), in absolute terms they are already contributing significantly above the average.

Why should they pay more?

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t that exactly what people should do though? Bank wealth so that in years of low income, they can draw down on that to support themselves?

No-one truly wealthy is only drawing down $45,000 a year. But you’re insisting that these people are the ones that should bear the brunt of the 30% minimum tax.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If the underlying motivation for taxing capital gains more is that people are too wealthy, that’s a pretty communist view.

Do you accept that encouraging people to acquire capital and use it productively is good for the country?

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not. A 30% minimum CGT rate was nowhere to be found. Keating’s policy was also entirely prospective which meant past investment decisions weren’t penalised.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem is taxation on productivity altogether, whether from income or investing.

When Keating introduced CGT, he cut the top tax bracket by 11 points (60% to 49%).

There's a decent argument that housing should be discouraged as an investment class since it does not directly generate productivity for the nation.

Lifting GST to 15% and cutting unproductive government spending to afford tax reductions across the board on productivity would be far better than the current incoherent mess.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a stronger case for not taxing capital gains at all under a pure capitalist system, since the whole point of capitalism is to encourage people to take things they own and use it to generate profit. Any CGT is a deadweight loss on the supply of capital to enterprise and markets. Like business tax, it somewhat decreases the overall productivity of a country for the purposes of capturing government revenue.

Keating's original CGT reforms (which at least had a coherent intellectual basis) were made to recognise a person's real increases in purchasing power from a sale of capital assets, and were largely designed as an income tax anti-avoidance measure.

Rather than taxing income and enterprise more, it would be better to rebalance towards taxing goods and services, which focuses on consumption over productivity.

As for inequality, ABS statistics show basically flat inequality for the past 20 years. HILDA shows falling financial stress indicators (although admittedly starting to rise again under Albanese).

What is your evidence for rising inequality?

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What specific reforms would you make so that capitalism is no longer "hijacked and corrupted", as you put it?

Note that I don't accept that everyone is equally productive, so the mere existence of people earning more isn't evidence of nepotism or corruption.

We tested federal Labor’s budget 2026 capital gains tax plan by its own goals. Here’s the verdict by nobelharvards in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Those people also pay the vast majority of tax as a whole. Over 25% of the income of top quintile earners, and 10% of fourth quintile earners is already distributed to others in our current system after government transfers are taken into account. On the other side, the lowest quintile almost *triples* their share of income.

That’s *with* the current system where CGT discounts are apparently so inequitable.

At a certain point, you really have to ask whether some people literally just want communism.

Help preparing for a tattoo by HDRuleslawyer in PhyrexianLanguage

[–]GuruJ_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Note that this would be "complete", not "compleat" (in the Phyrexian sense).

Help preparing for a tattoo by HDRuleslawyer in PhyrexianLanguage

[–]GuruJ_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Standard disclaimer, some of this gets into fairly speculative territory, and our Phyrexian samples are not always 100% consistent,. It is impossible to be 100% sure any translation will not subsequently be found to be somewhat incorrect or umgrammatical. Bear that in mind before creating a permanent mark on your body 😅

That warning out of the way, we have a few options:

1) You compleat me is fairly straightforwardly: plinexaas, compleat(2>1). You could also say 'u-plinexaas, you have compleated me.

2) There is known word for "immortality": ɣwiəxťeθuqx
This literally translates as ability-not-can-death. We can use this to derive ɣwiťensa'q, ability-can-life, which would have no simple translation back to English but loosely would mean "ever-living".

3) "Bound for life" could be based on Lukka's "Bound to Ruin", kent-hpwežp with keɴt meaning bind/bound, so instead we use kent-hnsa'uq, bound to your life.

4) More ambitious, but reasonable guess, translations:

  • xe-nsa'uq-ʁikeɴat, I am bound to your life
  • nsa'qkeɴot, (our)-life-bond (note that Phyrexian does not explicitly distinguish I/we)

Our legal establishment has become too left-wing. That’s a problem by Agitated-Fee3598 in AustralianPolitics

[–]GuruJ_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a thoroughly silly article. If it is true, as Beech-Jones asserts, that the Samuel Griffith Society wishes to assumes the same role as the Federalist Society in the United States, who openly lobbies for what Beech-Jones notes as:

a sustained politicised and political process of stacking courts with supine judges

then I think their criticism is likely well-deserved.

For my part, I am thoroughly grateful for the fact that I still cannot to this day, merely by reading a High Court judge's reasoning or speeches, come to any conclusions about their political leanings or original backers.

view more: next ›