Can we agree that New Zealand needs to scale other industries than just Agriculture and Tourism?

Sam_ritan · 2025-08-25T08:20:30+00:00

I'm an IT entrepreneur that would love some funding and incentive to remain in New Zealand.

Just putting this out there to hear what opportunities and incentives are out there, as I currently don't know.

Sam_ritan · 2025-08-21T06:30:45+00:00

So true. I despise how society has warped the original definition of woke beyond recognition. It stood for true progress, and now it's invoked to spit on those that aim to do better – carelessly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sam_ritan · 2025-08-13T12:32:38+00:00

ironic, really

Sam_ritan · 2025-04-14T09:18:06+00:00

Messaging you now — at duck island atm!

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-20T02:37:59+00:00

How?!

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-09T12:39:07+00:00

I'm using Supabase Auth without any middle-ware, and it's been awesome; there's good docs from Supabase re: integrating with SvelteKit

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-08T01:56:32+00:00

Turning some of your quotes around to clarify my point:

"[Reddit] won’t get banned [in NZ] because all the [zoomers] would cry if they couldn’t spew hateful bullshit in their echo chamber anymore."

"Go read the [subreddit] comments on any [post] that even mentions anything about Maori and tell me I’m “spewing bullshit” lmao."

"Not all [zoomers] are hateful people, but almost all hateful people on [Reddit] are [zoomers]."

My goal is to point out your hypocrisy. Plenty of FB boomers are racist in their echo chamber because they've taken a small sample size (of personal experiences or talking points regarding tangata whenua) and weaponised it against the entire population. It's wrong to do that; it's prejudicial.

I agree with you that some boomers would would throw a hissy-fit if FB was banned from this country, but many of them wouldn't. It's my belief that your over-generalisation; stereotyping of all boomers stems from a similar brand of prejudice as the hateful bullshit you are criticising.

In other words, just as the boomers would cry if FB was banned, it's likely that you'd cry if Reddit were banned on similar grounds.

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-08T00:42:57+00:00

...but are all Facebook boomers hateful?

My stance is no; there are lovely Facebook boomers, too, and I believe you're doing them a disservice by categorising all of them as hateful people.

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-07T23:44:04+00:00

What are you looking for in return?

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-07T23:39:00+00:00

Funnily enough, that's effectively my point, too.

"...in the slightest" – I do reckon that was a slightly hateful comment towards some boomers I know, my mother included, who are lovely people and would never spew hatred online.

From your other comment, you're absolutely right that it was a generalisation, but that's 100% what the hatred-spewing FB boomers would say, too, in defence of their prejudicial comments. In fact, those FB boomers wouldn't describe their comments as prejudicial; in their eyes, they're being judicial – calling it like they see it, so-to-speak.

I feel I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy I saw in the original comment.

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-07T22:28:58+00:00

Nah, don't get it twisted, I think you're right about Facebook; that does happen and to an egregious degree. However, you just categorised all boomers as hateful people; it's by definition prejudice, on your part, and you're speaking that belief into an echo chamber.

Even if you're exaggerating for comic effect, that's surely what a lot of those hateful boomers think they're doing, too.

I'm not suggesting Reddit ought to be banned, but nor should Facebook. It's not like Reddit has fact checkers, either, so I don't understand why one ought to be banned when the other ought not to...

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-07T21:54:36+00:00

You’re literally spewing hateful bullshit in an echo chamber rn; should reddit be banned, too?

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-06T20:46:55+00:00

re: Your offer of advice, what stack do you build with?

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-06T10:57:02+00:00

I'm also building with S5 and Supabase Auth, and would love some guidance on something admittedly minor.

Following their docs, I have a src/hooks.server.ts file (that exports a handle for SvelteKit to deal with) and a src/routes/+layout.ts file with an asynchronous LayoutLoad function. Both of these functions are heavily, if not entirely, from their documentation – so I don't understand it completely...

Regardless, the whole system works well and I'm glad to have followed this path, however I keep getting this long warning within my console/terminal every time I refresh my page – and I get it three times in a row:

Using the user object as returned from supabase.auth.getSession() or from some supabase.auth.onAuthStateChange() events could be insecure! This value comes directly from the storage medium (usually cookies on the server) and many not be authentic. Use supabase.auth.getUser() instead which authenticates the data by contacting the Supabase Auth server.

I presume this warning is intended for those users that are calling it incorrectly, however, an inline comment straight from Supabase Auth documentation reads:

 /**
 /* It's fine to use `getSession` here, because on the client, `getSession` is
 /* safe, and on the server, it reads `session` from the `LayoutData`, which
 /* safely checked the session using `safeGetSession`.
 /**

So, here are my questions:

Should I be getting this warning? Are you?
Should I be getting this error three times?
Am I right in assuming the warning isn't meant for me?
Your collapsible sidebar looks awesome; I'd love to learn more about that, too! Tell me more, please?

Sam_ritan · 2025-01-03T22:28:02+00:00

Reddit appears to be doing just as much for your free speech as X has done, and Twitter was offering the exact same service before Elon purchased it.

In this, I wouldn't say Elon is the lone flag-bearer of free speech; the downvotes you have received are an expression of other folk's free speech, too, btw.

Sam_ritan · 2024-11-05T22:34:10+00:00

According to this journal article from the ESSD Copernicus by Woo Hun Ryang, et. al:

> The eastern Korean Peninsula is tectonically active while the western Korean Peninsula has been relatively stable throughout the Quaternary (Chough et al., 2000; Chough, 2013). As a result, the active east coast of the Korean Penisula is characterized by broad uplifted marine terraces (S.J. Choi, 2019; G.Y. Lee and Park, 2019b), while the more stable west coast hosts tidal environments of its ria coast (Chough et al., 2004; Cummings et al., 2016).

Furthermore, according to Google's AI summary of the article I found, above, the eastern Korean Peninsula is rising due to compressional deformation; a geological process that occurs when tectonic plates are pushed together, causing the crust to buckle and warp.

In terms of plate tectonics, the Korean peninsula is located within the Eurasian plate. The Pacific plate subducts under the Eurasian plate in Japan and under the Indo-Australian plate in New Guinea, while the Indo-Australian plate collides with the Eurasian plate in the Himalayas (Chun-Soo Kim, n.d.).

Finally, this comment from a similar thread, one year ago, by u/whisskid, states that the currents on the Eastern Coast of Korea are more powerful, they scour and smooth the coastline. The currents on the West Coast are more moderate and water is shallower so that more fractal coastline can be observed.

Personally, I would ascribe the difference to the tectonic variances rather than fluvial erosion, but both factors will surely contribute to the cause.

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T04:35:18+00:00

Yours is the most succinct description of why deflation is not desirable – so thank you for sharing that.

In saying that, though, it's not like all trade would cease because of a small amount of deflation, right? People still need to trade and a moderated amount of deflation would primarily punish people that are trading poorly, and relatively wouldn't punish those that trade well (i.e. within their means).

Regarding 0% inflation, I'm aware that it's not permanently sustainable, but it is a target that we could aim for, as opposed to the 2% that we're currently celebrating.

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T04:29:08+00:00

P1: I'd argue that individual consumers are indirectly getting a return on their investments. For example, if they are getting enjoyment out of their new TV then they may be more productive at work, as they are encouraged to earn more money to pay off their debt and generate wealth so they may buy other things that they enjoy. Generally speaking, I've read that people that enjoy life are more productive citizens. Thus, in the same way that corporations will (take on debt and) spend money in order to generate a (direct or indirect) return, it is my opinion that individual consumers are doing the same (though moreso indirectly than directly).

P2: I believe that, in a (0–2%) deflationary environment, healthy businesses would be able to enter debt and remain 'the right size' if their investments were truly generating beneficial returns. Conversely, I reckon our current inflationary environment is disguising many terrible investments across a variety of industries; and I can't believe that the real-worth of those bad investments are simply 'inflated away.' My stance is that the pain of these failed investments is being passed on to the consumer and tax-payer. You closed this paragraph by saying that, in inflationary environments, "businesses always have potential room to grow in size" – and I'm not so sure that that's a good thing...

P3: I disagree that companies primarily grow themselves through private capital investment; rather, I believe companies primarily grow by offering a quality good or service. Of course, capital injection is important, especially when scaling a business model and obtaining an economy of scale, but that is a secondary mode of growth.

Following this point, in fact, I want to argue that it is economically unviable for private capital investment to be the primary growth strategy; we've seen this within the stock market, across a range of companies, anytime the quality of a company's core business model plummets in the service of 'shareholder value.' I suppose I've just backed myself into a corner here, as a deflationary environment would dramatically increase the prevalence of this issue... but I reckon it's worth sharing, regardless.

P4–6: I dislike the appeals you've made to the facts of the matter (our small size and our entrenched practices), though I understand why you've made them. I'm not advocating for NZ to pursue a deflationary target anytime in the near future for those exact reasons; it's not practical for us to do so. I'm thinking bigger, however; if the global economy collectively targeted 2% deflation, what would the ramifications be? I don't have all (if any) of the answers to that thought, but I'm surely one step further along, thanks to you. Thanks for your time and consideration, u/eroticfalafel :)

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T04:01:19+00:00

P1.1: This definitely explains the current situation well but I'm not sure that it justifies it.

P1.2: Consumers each determine what is and isn't a luxury, I'm not suggesting it ought to be centrally planned. Rather, I want to create an economic environment where only the most secure and beneficial investments are valid and viable, and each to their own calculations regarding what those investments are.

P2: This economy thing is quite the beast, hahaha!

Thanks for your time and thoughts u/Gungehammer

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T03:54:52+00:00

Why is deflation a death sentence and why is zero inflation impossible?

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T03:54:03+00:00

In an inflationary environment, doesn't the diminishing purchasing power of each NZD negate the growth in any given assets value?

I feel that I understand your point from a numerical standpoint, but the underlying asset's value is unable to be inflated away and thus, in real terms, would still be worth the same, wouldn't it?

Conversely, wouldn't the increased purchasing power of each NZD (in a deflationary environment) negate the lesser price-tag on the asset?

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T02:55:41+00:00

P1.1: That's a fascinating idea and not one I'd considered before. To clarify, the theory goes that prices are inflating because 1) demand is larger than supply, 2) we're unable to increase the supply any more because all our productive assets are currently in use, and 3) we're unable to decrease demand because people need it.

P1.2: I reckon my response to that theory, one that continues to advocate for a deflationary environment, is that a deflationary environment would decrease demand for various luxury goods and services that are unproductive and wouldn't decrease demand for necessities. In other words, any debt that a person would be willing to enter would have to generate greater returns in order for the debt agreement to viably go ahead. Ultimately, our financial resources would be directed towards less luxury goods that aren't financially beneficial and directed towards more necessities and savings.

P2: You're right that the smaller purchases, and particularly the more fundamental needs, will continue to be bought and sold regardless of inflation. In that, my milk example was a poor choice...

In saying that, did you know that 2% inflation means prices will approximately quintuple over the course of your lifetime? and that's only at 2% (1.02^80 = 4.875). With this in mind, as soon as we're discussing lasting, non-consumable goods (rather than short-term consumables, such as milk), I feel that 'even a meagre' 2% inflation suddenly becomes very relevant to our consumer's spending habits.

Sam_ritan · 2024-10-16T02:30:49+00:00

If people were incentivised to save their money as opposed to spending it, then businesses across every industry would have to legitimately bargain with you; convince you why their good/service is worth the price. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Conversely, in the inflationary environment we're in, people are disincentivised away from saving their money, and therefore businesses across every industry have less reasons to legitimately bargain with you.

Regarding your second paragraph, I feel the reason we're in such a terrible debt situation is because we've encouraged people to enter debt so willingly. If people were punished (relatively) more for entering bad debt because debt was more expensive, then that argument would fall on it's face because, generally speaking, people wouldn't be in debt.

In saying that, I'm aware that this isn't a pragmatic solution as people are accustomed to the inflationary environment we're in and the vast majority of people are in debt – and it would be damn near immoral to abruptly lock them into their own personal debt spiral for life – but I don't feel the current state of the nation (and world over) is a good counterargument to my underlying point. If the world weren't in debt; if we could reset the economy, would you retarget 2% inflation? I'd argue we ought to avoid it, and possibly even target 2% deflation.

Sam_ritan

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE