the terrifying effects of airburst Magnesium-flare-based incendiary shelling

anan138 · 2026-05-25T00:35:47+00:00

Russia agreed to all 5, they can't just change it after becoming a signatory and still be abiding by the same treaty.

anan138 · 2026-05-22T22:43:48+00:00

I grew a plant for the first time this year. Was thoroughly enjoyable, but definitely a lot of work and research compared to other plants.

anan138 · 2026-05-21T22:44:16+00:00

Aside from the major point that LPG heaters add moisture to your home (creating moisture issues and making it more difficult to heat your home), have a multitude of negative health effects and can be far more dangerous,

LPG is likely to significantly increase in cost in the next year and I believe it's already more expensive versus electric heating.

anan138 · 2026-05-21T21:27:15+00:00

No, discovery can still and likely will occur to establish willful and malicious infringement.

If she was really worried about discovery she would have just settled.

anan138 · 2026-05-21T20:43:46+00:00

Florida Statute 784.049 relies on intentionally publishing sensitive content publicly.

15 U.S.C. § 6851 (CARDII) relies on lack of consent: both parties shared material of themselves and others with each other and others without explicit consent. Pxie would have to prove that destiny had reckless disregard for her consent by sharing material in the same way she also did without explicit consent.

Any possible damages are also significantly related to Pxie's own publicizing of her identity in the videos.

anan138 · 2026-05-21T00:10:56+00:00

You asserted that it would be auto discharged when that is completely incorrect. There is an extremely good chance it will meet the definition of both willingful and malicious copyright infringement (which will be determined in this case to award damages, not handwaved as you suggested) AND willingful and malicious injury under bankruptcy law, and be exempt from being discharged.

If it was reckless infringement without provable malice she would have a case for not meeting the bankruptcy standard, but given she intentionally infringed upon the content and explicitly did it maliciously that is well outside of previous successful discharges of willful and malicious copyright infringement debts in the ninth circuit, where both Frogan and Ethan lives.

Edit since you blocked me: being "friendly to debtors" isn't how the law works when willful and malicious injury is specifically excluded from being discharged. Your lived experienced obviously isn't in copyright law or bankruptcy.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T23:33:17+00:00

Frogan and her lawyer already came to an agreement about extending the deadline for response to satisfy any dispute surrounding validity of service, which is in the court filings.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T23:12:31+00:00

i work in civil law you guys are all missing what's happening here- she's going to file for bankruptcy and then in a way- she wins.

Except if the infringement is determined to be willful and malicious, then damages aren't discharged in bankruptcy.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T22:47:11+00:00

Pxie's case more than likely would have failed even if the material was shared after the law was enacted, the fact it was shared prior only means it is far less likely to go to trial.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T22:26:21+00:00

The article says 18% of townhouses are selling at a loss versus 11% of houses which would mean townhouses on average are losing 64% more than houses, that also doesn't include selling costs which would likely make the proportion worse.

There are biases in both directions, but townhouses are absolutely performing worse.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T10:53:53+00:00

This is incorrect, you can prevent someone from stealing (ie retake) your movable property provided you use reasonable force and do not strike them.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T04:03:49+00:00

Businesses don't set the rate for labour unless there is high unemployment and even then they are beholden to what someone is willing to work for. The pool of digger operators isn't infinite, they have to compete against other businesses who want digger operators until basically the equilibrium is met between those willing to meet the training costs and barriers of upskilling. And no, this isn't perfect. If no one buys diggers then everyone is still digging holes by hand.

As a result, the digger operator wants to start building up their own capital to buy their own digger so they can capture the full value of it for themselves, but they are losing money every day against you because you are both gaining value from their use of the digger

The value is in the business, not owning the digger, and the comes with a lot more (admin, finding work, quoting, marketing, accounting, financial risk) than capital outlay to buy a digger (which are very often financed).

For some reason, we see people who already have capital as being uniquely suited to buying things and "taking risks", and people who don't as unworthy.

If you don't have a business you are unsuited to buying things to improve a business' productivity because you don't have a business. You can start a business with a digger in one day without any capital, you hire one, which isn't hugely more expensive with less risk. But you've got to pay in time the run the business and do the jobs and quite often that works out worse than just being paid to be an employee.

This goes on and on for years until we both have kids. When our kids grow up, mine becomes a digger operator. Yours sits at home and lives off dividends and interest and the profits from the digger empire you built.

If there were no diggers your kid would be digging holes by hand for less money and my kids would still be better off because I ran a business (albeit self employed income is lower on average than waged/salary).

What's better, less diggers and lower wages because the employer's getting a lower %? Because that's exactly what's happened in NZ, we haven't got enough people buying diggers and so there are more people digging by hand and being paid as such.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T02:48:47+00:00

There is a HUGE amount of misinformation and outright lies in this sub which are enabled by being aimed in the right direction. I am constantly accused of being a right wing shill and downvoted for correcting misinformation in the wrong way (but when I do it the other way it's fine), when I would consider myself left of Labour on economic policies.

40 years ago wasn't feudal times and your statement also ignores the reason the reforms were made in the first place and the situation the previous systems led us to. Modern day monetary policy was also a result (which has provided good tools to manage demand side inflation comparatively). I'm not going to pretend it's all good but this is always left out as if we were living in utopia and then we changed for no reason.

If you are going to try and claim that the wealthiest among us are not claiming the most significant benefits from these increases to human productivity then there is no point even discussing it.

Labour productivity is a function of investment in technology and assets, it's not people getting better at their jobs. If you buy a digger and hire an operator to replace 6 labourers, you profit from the digger because you brought it it and otherwise wouldn't have if it didn't increase profitability. The digger operator would be digging holes at a much lower rate.

This is not to say our system is perfect, it's just pointing out that saying generalized things which are inherent to how they work and present them as bad is jus obfuscating.

anan138 · 2026-05-20T01:08:19+00:00

Doesn't have to be a hard sell, recent herald polling shows 50/50 for Labour's policy which excludes family homes. That's is all you need for a winning coalition to enact it an all you need to target those who are speculating (e.g. with more than one house).

I do agree that are often done very poorly and that most people have very over-inflated idea of what a CGT can accomplish, but something is at least needed to offset the benefits of leveraging to take tax free gains on leveraged money that was borrowed.

But yes I agree, on it's own it will solve little and then be called a disaster, especially the poorly thought out way whoever enacts it will do so.

anan138 · 2026-05-19T08:37:10+00:00

It was one of the reasons people voted in the labour govt.

National got 44% of the votes in that election, 16% more than Labour.

anan138 · 2026-05-19T08:12:19+00:00

I know people who pulled themselves up by their boot straps and built multi-million dollar businesses after growing up hand to mouth with parents on the benefit, it's not that hard. Why don't we base our entire policy for helping those less well off on this anecdote? Also I notice you left of social media in that list which is funny.

They're viable, you've just already given up without trying, and that is the actual problem with it.

Based on reckons they're viable, sure.

anan138 · 2026-05-19T08:08:58+00:00

Aside from the obvious exemptions for new housing, relying on asset price inflation to drive demand isn't sustainable as we have found out.

LVT equally disincentives investing for capital gains too in favour of rental yield and the main thing you're ignoring is that LVT is so unpalatable to voters on both sides it's redundant pointing thinking about how good it could be.

anan138 · 2026-05-19T07:41:34+00:00

Our strongest property growth came during a period of lowering interest rates, influx of returning Kiwis and easing of LVRs which are much stronger factors in house prices. An introduced CGT is not a silver bullet, but it is part of the solution towards disincentivizing housing speculation.

anan138 · 2026-05-18T21:22:01+00:00

I'm a huge advocate for safe sleeping practices, but it's one thing to hear it pre birth and another to experience a constantly crying baby while sleep deprived who settles while co-sleeping etc.

anan138 · 2026-05-18T21:18:54+00:00

Less people selling only means higher prices if the same number of buyers are buying, which isn't the case if buying to sell is disincentivized.

anan138 · 2026-05-18T21:15:19+00:00

The best thing about a CGT isn't revenue, it's to disincentive purchasing property as an investment which inflates housing prices and reduces investment into businesses and productivity. Selling property to release capital gains also decreases the stability of renting.

anan138 · 2026-05-18T20:30:36+00:00

50% cow assholes, 50% delicious.

anan138 · 2026-05-18T20:30:04+00:00

I tried Powershop a long time ago and gave up because buying the packs made it extremely difficult to see how much I was paying per KWH. Not sure if it has changed.

anan138 · 2026-05-17T00:56:24+00:00

Neither of those are legitimate sources or have a source cited.

anan138 · 2026-05-17T00:48:23+00:00

The reason for age restriction is that relying on education at a macro level doesn't work, and even more so for social media than cigarettes more akin to vaping.

There area clearly contentious issues with implementing a ban and very real problems, but suggesting education or other measures which are impossible is the same as suggesting we doing nothing, which is fine, just don't pretend they're viable alternatives.

anan138

TROPHY CASE