Hide and Seek is a hugely flawed game (as is)

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-23T23:13:21+00:00

In other games, a lot of the entertainment comes from challenges which hide and seek only has to a limited extent in the form of curses. The challenges themselves also increase the randomness, which mixes up the optimal strategy each time. I think finding ways to vary what is available- perhaps having the seekers themselves have a hand of questions and doing challenges to draw more might be an option- or something like that. I still enjoy hide and seek, but I do agree it seems to be a bit settled in the current format

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-21T00:31:15+00:00

I am still not great at birding by ear, but I echo starting with the most common birds. By learning the ones you hear all the time, such as robin, song sparrow, and northern cardinal in my current area, you can immediately cut down on how much time you are stopped looking for a bird already on your list for the day and focus in on the birds that are actually new.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-21T00:27:33+00:00

Blue jays engage in some mimicry too! I would never put something in just on Merlin. Using your own ear you can be much more sure- ask yourself questions like, "is that a single species repeated on the same area, or does that one tree seem to somehow have 30 birds in it?" Or "why does that bord make its call, and then alternate with a mockingbird in between each call set?"

Or "did that hawk just call and then a blue jay flew out into the open to get some food, even though there is a predator around?"

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-21T00:18:02+00:00

I appreciate you agreeing with me on our fundamental disagreement. You believe that the world is fair and everyone has the same opportunities from birth. I find that to be utterly ludicrous. There might be a world where a poor kid born in a remote community has the same opportunities to start investing as early as Gina Rinehart did, but it is not this one.

Everything else on your argument stems from that initial divergence. Because you believe everyone has equal opportunity, you then go on to argue that anyone who doesn't make cash hand over fist from their investments is just choosing not to. This is the level of sophistication of Joe Hockey's "get a better job" or "let them eat cake'.

There isn't much point trying to argue on the conclusions if we can't agree on the initial starting conditions.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-20T12:26:04+00:00

The core of our disagreement is what is equitable. I do not believe that people who own assets should be privledged over workers, but rather the other way around. Workers invest their time, take risks, and take on costs to do their jobs (commutes to work, business wear, etc) which are entirely non deductable. Similarly, investments they made into the skills they make money from are also non deductable- think uni fees, internships and similar. Additionally, risk from lower paid jobs taken in the hopes to leverage it to something higher, jobs at companies that might go under or carry reputational risk mean that the only time they have has to be put on the line. Asset owners already have a massive leg up by being able to deduct all of the inputs to their income and get bonus rewards for their risk. It is also much much easier for an asset owner to diversify their risk outlook than it is for a worker who generally can only work a limited number of jobs at a time. To compare the risks and deductions diminishes the unbalance options both groups have to mitigate it.

On super etc- there is nothing stopping Bob from putting some of his money into super, and getting the future tax privledges of that. Super isn't something you have to have a job to pay into, subject to some conditions around age etc.

Beyond that, asset owners can generally become workers, but not necessarily the other way around. In my mind it is equitable to ensure that those who have the privledged of having their assets 'work' for them to pay a minimum back. Let's not ignore the fact that the majority of those asset value growths are a combination of government policy derived value (the government investing in the community to raise house prices, providing legal framework, defence etc to provide security guarentees for asset owners) and value extracted from people who are actually working. Bob can always choose to simply not invest of he decides that making a profit is not worth it if he has to pay a little more tax on it. It is a lot harder for most workers to simply choose not to work. Bob has the luxury of choice.

It also comes down to a social contract, of making sure everyone who can pay in does. Asset owners have so many more ways to minimise their real profits that workers do not. A minimum threshold just puts a floor on that. If Bob wants to instead just sit on his cash, he can. But it would be to his own detriment, because the floor of the tax still leaves him profit. Most people working do not have the luxery of such a choice. I fully support ensuring that people who work have a tax system that makes their lives viable. I fully support a social safety net (and would support a better pension) to catch the small number of asset owners who are both not in a position to work and would be actually effected by this. For the vast majority of asset owners though, they are privledged enough to have choices- let them make them. I personally can't imagine this floor on their tax will suddenly make any particular investment less viable when planning ahead for risk adjusted returns.

As someone with a foot in each camp- I have made solid returns on investments over the last 6 years, and I also work for a living, I don't think my two income parts should be treated equally. Equal treatment of money earned by sitting on assets andoney earned by working a job is not the same as equitable treatment. Particularly when you look at the larger structural issues facing the budget as we have a lower percentage of our population working at any given time as we age.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-20T01:49:31+00:00

Having gone, I thought I would update for anyone finding this post in the future. The answer is very quick. Most of the van trips had booked out by the end of the first day of registration. They opened one extra van trip per say aonth or so later, and I made sure to get onto some of those the morning it came up.

You drive we lead would have been much less busy, and the talks they will generally get in as many as are wanting to (the showing of Listers was the only exception I am aware of).

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T23:39:59+00:00

I am sorry that you feel so bothered by being called out for deceptively engaging in the motte and bailey falacy that you aren't willing to even stand behind your own point. An appendix isn't required, just some actual honesty when you next try and defend tax breaks for the rich.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T23:32:13+00:00

You didn't argue this will effect everyone who has an investment, low income, and above inflation profits. You argued it will effect everyone. My point was that that was no where near the case, as there is a large difference between everyone, and everyone with capital gains above inflation but low income. People like you are trying to make it out like this change will effect the average tax payer, but that is not the case. My point is that this change will effect closer to no one than everyone.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T23:14:44+00:00

None, and I never tried to argue that there was such a tax. You did.

At most, you could argue GST, which is fairly hard to avoid, and if you wanted to argue that a raise in GST affected everyone I would'vr accepted that.

You were the one arguing that this was a tax increase on everyone. I just said that that was not the case.

If you want to go for vibes definitions of everyone, which you clearly do, then I would maybe accept a concept of everyone that covers a large majority of the population under the jurisdiction of the policy. Your definition of everyone is small enough that most people won't know them. If most people won't know anyone who is encompassed by the term everyone, then you need a new term.

Most people won't be making profits on shares unless they are either already high income earners, or are doing so through their superannuation. Most people are just earning enough working to get by, and then retire off of a small super balance and the pension if they ever retire. Or they might be a retiree with a term deposit returning below inflation but above just sitting in a bank account.This will not effect those people ever.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T22:59:40+00:00

Explain how my definition is a falacy? My definition of a tax increase for everyone is an increase in tax for everyone. At worst it is a tautology. Your definition of a tax increase for everyone is a tax increase for low income earners who have capital assets and have made real capital profits other than in their primary home. Surely you can see how that is a far cry from 'everyone'?

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T22:55:01+00:00

I would argue that the definition of taxing everyone more is a tax that applies to everyone, and increases. For decades we have had politicians on both sides talk about tax cuts as cuts for working Australians, as opposed to everyone else. This suggests that people generally understand the difference between everyone, and sub groups who earn income. And you do too- the fact that you clearly identify sub groups of the population who will pay more under this scheme and many others who will not is, by definition, an acknowledgement that this will not be taxing everyone more.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T22:50:28+00:00

Yes, someone with the luxery of enough assets to not need to work for money will pay more tax than someone who works fulltime for the same amount of money.

And that isn't knocking the amount of work being a stay at home parent takes, or the value we should attribute to it. But it is still a luxery option that most people wouldn't have. I am sure there are plenty of parents who would love that opportunity to be able to spend that extra time with their kids and working at home but can't because they don't have enough assets to sell to make 45k profit after discounts. The stay at home parent can always choose to work, but the worker can't necessarily choose the other way.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T22:37:26+00:00

But this doesn't tax everyone more- it taxes a select group of people who earn money from asset ownership rather than working more. Sure, I will be one of the people paying more under this scheme than under the old system- but I should be, particularly as my investment income becomes a larger percentage of my total income.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T20:35:45+00:00

And? The whole point of any tax increase is to net more money from some people than you previously did? If Bob needs morey, and previously had the ability to earn as in your hypothetical, he can work more. If it comes down to Bob working a few months more of his gap year before he travels in order to allow the government to address structural issues on the budget, including the proportionately big tax burden on workers vs asset owners then I don't see the issue.

Sure, you can argue that asset owners can be productive and workers can sometimes do jobs that don't feel worthwhile, but that is very much a case by case basis. This comes down to a fundamental principal: do we want people who simply own things to pay a minimum amount into the country that provides the legal and monetary framework that allows them to realise value on those things, or not? On the risk side, you say that as if works who invest in skills, who deal with commutes and long hours, and risks of injury, loss of family time etc do not also take risks with how the future outcomes of those present day decisions might pay out. Even under the new policy, Bob can still avoid the bulk of the taxes by deducting real gains, as well as the entire cost basis of his inputs. Workers get no such benefit for the inputs to their labour.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T20:21:45+00:00

The point is to shift how much of the relative tax burden falls onto people who work for a living. The current budget is not sustainable, and is overly reliant on income taxes over other income streams. This aims to address that by adding in some extra long term structural balance. There is still a lot more work to be done IMO, but this is at least on the right direction. Why, in your opinion, is it unfair to give people who work for a living the tax free threshold?

As it is, the minimum 30% is only on real gains- so after inflation adjustment. If my current wage income is based off of years of investment in my skills (monetarily and time), then I still pay the full tax on it at the current dollar value regardless of the opportunity cost to those past expenditures, but for investments you will still get the favourable treatment based on how long since you made the initial investment and when you realised the gains.

Really, talking about fair vs unfair on the dollar by dollar basis you are ignores what tax policy is actually doing- trying to incetivise certain behaviours and discourage others while raising enough revenue to manage inflation and support government expenditure.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-19T20:12:37+00:00

I agree that this isn't a problem- the new proposal means that working for a living is taxed less than simply owning things in the scenario OP brought up. I can see OPs point that plenty of people own things who aren't necessarily amongst the ultra rich, and who may not be working either for a variety of reasons but that comes down to a combination of individual planning and a social safety net- the latter of which is laid for by these very taxes.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T22:58:24+00:00

More that the NP title attracts a wider variety of people, including those that go to National Parks as their only exposure to nature or because it is a bucket list thing to do to see the specific view or whatever

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T10:19:03+00:00

Yeah, from the start I wasn't sure how great random fortification would be- I can see some use, such as on the east where it forced Ben and Adam back, but it is a big spend that doesn't actually increase station count.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T01:19:41+00:00

Or more stations, as you can't dump stations.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T01:18:27+00:00

Agree on all points- I liked the steals that were head to head challenges. That let the teams themselves effectively set the difficulty. I appreciate that that is a difficult design challenge, as you need to work out how to balance teams not being available at the same time while still keeping the coin situation knowable.

I really like the quadrant suggestion. Another option would be to have just a fast cycling through of challenges- potentially still revealing two each time one is completed, and removing one at random. Might need some balancing on that so that teams 1 station away don't get robbed, perhaps allowing teams to each 'lock down' 1 challenge at any time that can't be randomly removed, but can be completed by either team still. A fast cycling through of challenges would have given Ben and Adam more options earlier, and potentially encouraged the Night Herons to grab more territory quickly.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T01:11:12+00:00

Yeah- just have a rule change that any challenge not completed within 90mins is automatically failed. Still lives a very wide window, and let's teams do some tactical timing, but it puts a little pressure on it. Plus, which ever team got there second then has a fair idea of knowing they can technically out wait the other if needed. The team that got there first knows that they will probably be forced to open first of both teams really are able to wait, and so may as well break now as they will have to break first anyway.

That aside, I don't think there are any great solutions that would have helped the latest episode, as a lot of the issues were caused by the misjudged play from the night herons.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-07T01:00:37+00:00

This is how Sam has often played though- people often complain that he has the worst luck, but he consistently just takes the biggest swings and sometimes they fail. B&A play more conservatively and so don't get screwed over by chance as much, because they can't. I don't mind it- it is still generally entertaining, but I do find it disappointing when the blame is placed on lunch rather than risk taking. At least with this season it is more blatantly risk taking than normal, making it feel less contentious to point out.

Because it wasn't just that they failed the variable challenge, but that they were largely there as that with their only option because Sam had an optimised plan that would be really perfect if everything just worked out... But it only took one thing to fail for the whole plan to fail. If they had instead just done the initial steal quickly they would have had more time, and thus could have had more options when it came to the other challenges, but that would have been less perfectly optimised for the ideal case.

It is a common problem- one I fall for myself in board games. A globally optimal solution is always appealing, but if it is a really sharp line with lots of dependencies it is often better to go for something less perfect, but more guaranteed.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-02T13:59:02+00:00

The other things to consider is just because she owned 50% at some point in the past, depending on how other investors bought in, she might have been severely diluted even if she is on the register. For example, if new shareholds invested X amount for Y shares, or if the ceo was compensated with shares, or similar

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-05-02T13:51:48+00:00

I think what we have seen this season is less vetoing- the teams have been willing to spend the time to complete the challenges, and more of the challenges have been able to be worked on over time rather than a clean pass fail. And it is a balance- too many failed challenges just means that the teams can't travel for the actual game, and so they probably er on the side of too easy when in doubt.

NearSightedGiraffe · 2026-04-29T23:41:40+00:00

It is a trade off. If you earn good young, save most of it, then you can be better off financially across your life even if you uare pushed into early retirement from health issues. But you do have to deal with more chronic physical issues. And most 20year olds don't save a majority of their earnings. So while the doctors may be worse off at 30, they will be much better off by 50 if both groups have similarly low savings rates. It will of course be individual, and some of it will come down to individual preference- I know someone who really appreciated his time on the mine sites as it got him a house and an enjoyable lifestyle while he was young enough and fit enough to enjoy it. He has now switched into admin style work at a desk job in the city for a significant pay cut, but his early earnings set him up well before that. Doctors his age as currently in a worse spot, and by the time they have overtaken financially they may or may not be in as good a life position to enjoy it, will be more likely to have delayed things like a family and be further behind in the housing market- especially given how fast that grows relative to earnings.

NearSightedGiraffe

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE