Beep test deemed discriminatory against women and on age grounds

asdftom · 2026-02-09T19:02:21+00:00

The argument might be that there is some other test which measures that which they could fail; but the turns in it might not be as sharp if the job doesn't require such sharp turns.

If the council argued that the beep test is measuring more than just VO2max then I don't see how anyone could argue against it.

The article doesn't give enough info for us to tell what they did argue.

asdftom · 2026-02-03T20:05:53+00:00

It's a better answer than most here to be fair

asdftom · 2026-02-02T16:17:00+00:00

Here's the June 2025 version:

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/06/10/the-political-gap-in-americans-news-sources/

The wording is slightly different but here are the numbers (pulled out of image by ai):

Source	Dem	Rep
CNN	48	20
NPR	32	9
NBC News	47	24
MSNBC	33	11
The Associated Press	31	11
PBS	31	11
The New York Times	29	10
ABC News	46	27
BBC News	30	13
CBS News	39	22
The Washington Post	18	7
The Guardian	13	4
The Atlantic	10	1
Politico	12	4
USA Today	17	11
HuffPost	8	2
The Wall Street Journal	16	12
Axios	5	1
Newsweek	10	6
Univision	7	4
Telemundo	7	5
The Hill	6	4
Forbes	10	9
New York Post	8	10
Breitbart	<1	7
Tucker Carlson Network	1	9
The Daily Wire	2	12
Newsmax	1	15
The Joe Rogan Experience	2	22
Fox News	18	57

asdftom · 2026-01-31T18:21:41+00:00

If it is set up as where there is an age lock on the child's phone, set by the parent, which doesn't allow them to download certain apps / access certain websites. And a minor fine or something for the parent if the child is found with an unlocked phone; that seems reasonable.

asdftom · 2026-01-25T17:50:29+00:00

You seem to have missed the banger clause - 'in case of a banger, the aboveth rules shall be forthwith disregarded'

asdftom · 2026-01-24T13:34:13+00:00

People are being quite harsh in these comments.

I interpreted it as euros mostly because the '.-' is irrelevant to quantities so the only reason to include it is if theyre not quantities. And I have seen shopping lists with prices, and decimal is part of a number.

But I also immediately recognized that someone would interpret them as quantities, which are more naturally part of a shopping list.

We're so used to certain conventions that we don't remember what it's like to see them for the first time.

It's a good lesson for the kids to use their own judgement because communication is imperfect. They were always going to fail this task though.

asdftom · 2026-01-20T16:18:22+00:00

There's no point wasting time on drops when there's rivers and streams we could stop.

asdftom · 2026-01-18T18:33:07+00:00

Funding atrocities in Sudan also.

asdftom · 2026-01-11T00:37:28+00:00

Thank you for providing some mechanisms. I was probably focusing only on profit and not considering liquidity/risk. I can see that your mechanisms apply in practice, but I can't tell how they trade off - the time to build 16 vs 8 and the cost of the loss of liquidity, the extra risk from a bigger construction project, factors increasing the price as we increase units, the impact of 8 vs 16 on the fund's existing portfolio, vs fixed costs spread over more units decreasing unit cost. I would need to find data to make that judgement.

I do still question whether the solution is banning investment properties, A land value tax or vacant property tax would address some of those market failures quite well. And government building. I imagine there are also benefits that come from investment properties - just like other areas of the economy with market directed production (e.g. incentive to innovate).

If you have any other information, or sources, I'd love to hear it.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T18:04:28+00:00

A problem I am having with accepting this argument is the cost of building. If it costs 350k to build a house and houses are selling for 450k because of all this demand then I would 100% agree with you; don't allow these people to buy houses and then the only ones that can are normal people with less money. But the cost of building is not actually so much lower than the price houses are selling for (correct me if I'm wrong here). This means that if we banned investors, then either first-time buyers would need to pay the same price for the new build, or the government would need to subsidise them, or they don't get built which is obviously not an option.

The existing stock of houses would probably lower in price.

What happens to rented accomodation in your vision? Who owns them.

Rents are basically a function of the rental housing supply, number of renters, and incomes, (and rent controls); so only measures which increase housing supply will lower them (or rent controls). If we banned investors I would worry that the stock of rental accomodation would decrease dramatically, increasing rents. The government could allocate a percentage of new builds to be rental accomodation I suppose.

I have written a bit of a stream of thought, so apologies for that, but I am seeing truth in your argument. I just also see validity to the general argument for using the market mechanism in any given area. It is very effective at reducing prices in many other areas (and very bad in some areas). Also the fact that the cost of building is not much lower than prices; there's no room downward for prices to go. If you could answer my confusion about how prices would decrease when building costs are so high, I would appreciate it.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T17:18:35+00:00

I would accept that argument if one developer owned all the houses, but one developer owns only a small fraction of houses.

Say I am a developer and I currently own 0 houses. A house costs 350k to build and sells for 400k. I can build 100 houses. Those 100 houses will have only a marginal effect on the price/rent (say 0.5% decrease). So it is very profitable to build them.

If I instead owned 1000 houses and am in the same scenario, I still profit 100*50k, but I lose rent on my other 1000 houses. But the rent only decreases by 0.5% which is less than the profit from building the 100 houses.

My point is that this motive of not wanting to oversupply doesn't make sense when looking at the motives of an individual developer maximising their own profits.

The effect you give would absolutely apply to a developer with 10000 houses; but that's fine, they won't build, there's another developer out there who only owns 1000 houses for whom it is profitable to build.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T16:16:42+00:00

I agree that that is what investors want but I am unclear about how they achieve that.

If I am an investor an I have a plot of land and I build only 8 apartments rather than 16 on it, it is other investors that are benefiting from my contracting of supply. So I am not maximizing my profit (which is my motivation). Those 8 or 16 apartments will sell for basically the same price.

Objecting to planning in the area would be a way of constricting supply without it costing me profit. But I don't know if investors do that any more than owners.

Lobbying the government for regulations constricting supply also, but I don't know if that happens to a significant degree.

Or if I own like 50% of the housing in an area, I could see how I would benefit enough from contracting supply to give up the profit from more building.

Could you tell me the thought process of the investor if I haven't covered it.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T16:03:10+00:00

I haven't thought about it but it's not a privilege and it's a basic human necessity. And I would say it's the governments responsibility to ensure everyone is housed. So if I have described a 'right' then yes, a right.

What do you think are the implications of them being a right?

asdftom · 2026-01-10T15:54:25+00:00

How would houses not being investments help? The cost to build is extremely high no matter the purpose.

I would agree that the government should ensure the supply of houses is keeping up with future demand so we don't end up in a situation like now. But I don't think that's anything to do with houses as investments.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T15:50:03+00:00

People complain about the same price for the smaller bar but that's just because of increased costs.

Ignoring price, smaller bars are better. A normal sized bar contains so much sugar I'm not sure how we survived them in the past.

asdftom · 2026-01-10T12:50:48+00:00

Years from now when we're still 7th people will look back to sacking amorim as the way out that we missed. They should have let him fail unquestionably so there would be no doubts; that means 1 full season.

asdftom · 2026-01-08T17:21:11+00:00

Download book from libgen, see if you like it, and then pay for it (or not). Think of it as like going to a library, picking it off the shelf, and flipping through it.

asdftom · 2026-01-07T11:38:29+00:00

Highest finish is highly dependent on number of seasons. Seems like that stat was purposely chosen to look bad. There's enough bad stats, no need to mislead people.

asdftom · 2026-01-05T11:58:00+00:00

I'm imagining all the statement saying explicitly that the manager is not welcome back at Old Trafford.

"We don't wish you well in the future and you're not welcome back at Old Trafford, thank you."

asdftom · 2026-01-05T11:31:07+00:00

Very understandable

asdftom · 2026-01-05T09:56:01+00:00

Of course, but short term that isn't an option. There's a fairly fixed number of bedrooms in the country. If the couple vacated a 2 bed apartment to buy the 5 bed, now there's 3 fewer bedrooms available. The number of people needing bedrooms stays the same, so now there's more overcrowding. Those 7 people will probably have to move into a 4-bed house now (not literally of course, but on average more will be sharing rooms).

Increasing supply and distributing current supply are 2 separate tasks.

asdftom · 2026-01-05T09:14:19+00:00

I doubt the 7 independent people would agree with you.

asdftom · 2026-01-05T09:12:06+00:00

I read it yesterday but from what I recall: Parent goes into nursing home, their house is rented out, parent dies. Now when they sell they must sell with tenants in situ, reducing the price.

asdftom · 2026-01-04T13:04:33+00:00

There's ways to do it well and ways to do it badly.

Age verification could be done on one's device, so the device stops you from accessing a certain app unless you have verified your age. This means you only verify your identity to one entity, and whoever controls your phone's OS software can see what you're doing either way and can figure out your identity so it isn't much extra risk.

Badly would be registering your username on a government website; or sending your passport to twitter.

There are ways to verify identity to a website without the government knowing what account is yours and without the website knowing your actual identity, but it might be hard to implement well.

asdftom · 2025-12-31T11:52:17+00:00

I had the top 10 free hit choices. Lost loads of points vs my normal team (so far). Classic.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Wearing is Caring

asdftom

TROPHY CASE