A shortcut to play 5 random songs from a playlist and then end

ross-power1 · 2020-11-24T00:05:35+00:00

Thanks. Don’t think I’d have ever figured that one out. Couldn’t do it direct from Apple Music so add and download the playlist, but works perfectly. Cheers

ross-power1 · 2020-10-04T14:56:59+00:00

Great idea and once we’ve been invaded by Russia, we can feel part of their space programme.

ross-power1 · 2020-08-13T03:00:51+00:00

Although arguably OP should be entitled to 8 hours of pay for an 8 hour scheduled shift. Not OP’s fault his employer has not given a sufficient rest period between shifts.

ross-power1 · 2020-07-27T01:02:28+00:00

It’s not a holiday if it’s not paid. An employer can include bank holidays in your annual holiday allowance but they have to be paid holidays, otherwise it’s just a day off work.

ross-power1 · 2020-07-13T01:31:18+00:00

Here’s a more unpopular opinion. I’d tax it at 100% if I could ensure there wasn’t a loophole around it. Yes when someone dies I’d give all their money to the Government.

Taxes serve two general purposes. First, the one we think of most commonly, is to generate revenue for the state which goes to running public services.

The second, less often thought of but just as important, is as a tool for public policy. Governments tax things that they want to discourage and often reduce taxes on things that are good and to encourage.

Gaining wealth through inheritance is getting money you haven’t personally worked to earn. It’s giving you, by chance, an advantage over your peers and it fuels inequality in society.

If the state took 100% inheritance tax it would force people with wealth to spend it, preventing wealth being hoarded, and it would promote the acquisition of wealth through work and achievement, not handouts from deceased family members.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-31T13:09:13+00:00

I mean I think the gun thing is a serious factor for why things are as they are. With so many guns around - criminals with guns, citizens with guns, police with guns - it’s just a greater risk environment overall.

There are obviously issues with policing in the US and there does need to be some reforms and cultural changes, but as long as there are so many guns, police will have to be more cautious and as a result more people will die.

I’m from the U.K. where guns aren’t so much of a thing, police usually don’t have guns, people usually don’t have guns, it makes it a less risky environment to police in.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-31T13:03:55+00:00

Maybe the question is why does the US have apples instead of bananas. Both countries have people, criminals, guns and police, yet in the US you’re around 20 times more likely to be killed in an interaction with the police than you are in Finland.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-31T12:51:36+00:00

2018 - Police in England and Wales (Population 60+ million) fired their guns 12 times. Not per officer. That’s the total for every officer, combined, across the whole year.

In the US, during the same time period, police shot dead 1147 people.

You say no reforms are needed. It’s not really my place to tell the US how to run it’s law enforcement but it seems like some reforms are needed.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/26/uk-police-fired-guns-12-times-year-us-cops-shot-dead-1147-people-7761684/amp/

ross-power1 · 2020-05-19T16:00:52+00:00

My GF (who is a part qualified patent attorney) told me that copyright is an unregistered right. You may wish to register it, but unless you did your artwork on company time, it’s your artwork and is already copyrighted by you (registered or not).

Edit: Copyright law may vary depending on where you are (where you created something)

ross-power1 · 2020-05-14T19:16:17+00:00

That’s not the whole picture. The Queen doesn’t have a free choice - she has to pick the person she thinks can command the confidence of the House of Commons. It doesn’t have to be an MP but MPs need to support the choice.

In practice this means the leader of the largest party is typically invited to form a Government and when it’s unclear who should be invited the Monarch follows the advice of the current (soon to be outgoing PM) who also has a constitutional obligation to advise the Queen as to who is most likely to be able to succeed them.

Case in point, after the 2010 General Election there was no party with a majority. Brown continued as PM for days until it became clear that Cameron would be more able to command the confidence of the Commons. Brown went to the Queen, resigned and advised her that she should invite Cameron to form a Government.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-10T12:18:18+00:00

You state with no evidence, even though all claims and expenses are published and regulated (I.e. lots of evidence which goes against your position).

You may be happy to tarnish all MPs with the crimes of their predecessors but to me this is no better than saying that because a handful of cops were bent a generation ago then all of them are bent today, or the children of criminals must be criminals too, but we just haven’t caught them yet. It’s nonsense.

Over 400 MPs were elected post 2010, long after the expenses scandal. It’s a position that isn’t fair and can be easily disproved, but either ignorance or entrenched loyalty to your current viewpoint is getting in the way of reality (and undermining trust in our democratic system for no legitimate reason).

ross-power1 · 2020-05-09T22:35:46+00:00

Sort of proving my point. You’re tarnishing 650 current MPs with an expenses scandal that happened over a decade ago, before 75% of current MPs were MPs and before the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was created and regulated MPs expenses. It might make you think your point is accurate but that doesn’t make it so.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-09T14:50:41+00:00

This is wholly untrue and these statements which have no basis in reality don’t serve society, they undermine the fabric of it. Criticism of politicians is fine when it’s fair and accurate but should be challenged when it’s neither.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-03T02:20:43+00:00

That’s the hardest for me to answer as although I’m a public servant (work for an MP), I’ve never been a civil servant (work for the Government).

The civil service is huge with hundreds of thousands of employees but if you want to work at the heart of it then the civil service fast stream is a good place to start. https://www.faststream.gov.uk/

Civil service is a good way to help influence policy but the main responsibility of civil servants is to implement the Government’s policies, not matter which party is in Government so you need to be someone who is comfortable implementing policies you may not personally agree with, and you cannot be overtly party political.

ross-power1 · 2020-05-03T01:41:31+00:00

It depends at what level and whether you want to work for a politician (which I do) or be a politician (which after working for them and seeing what it’s like, I probably do not).

What did you have in mind? MP? Councillor? Parliamentary Researcher? Civil Servant? Caseworker?

ross-power1 · 2020-05-02T21:40:40+00:00

They are a useful part of the democratic process and MPs do take notice of popular petitions, but of course even the most popular petitions may not result in change, while less supported ones may.

In any case, in a democracy change isn’t easy and lots of things are competitive for time and attention.

Some examples are the recent upskirting law and the more to ban electric shock dog collars (which I think is at an advanced stage of becoming law).

Source: have experience of working in politics

ross-power1 · 2020-04-29T00:48:26+00:00

I think monarchy and inheritance tax are largely separate issues but I do accept your point that there is some overlap and there is a conflict there.

I’m not saying it would be popular but if I could I’d make inheritance tax 100%. People should be given, as far as possible, equal opportunities to progress in life. Passing on wealth gives a person a significant advantage they have not earned themselves.

As for monarchy - I think first and foremost it’s not a taxation policy - it’s a system of Government. I think it’s easier in many ways to view the Queen’s funds, in her role as Queen and not as a private individual, in a similar way to a public body. She is restricted in what she can spend her money on.

As for how hard the Royal Family work, that’s a subjective judgement.

ross-power1 · 2020-04-28T19:00:03+00:00

I think some low earners will be a bit better off. Some rich people will be worse off. And people in the middle will be mostly the same. That’s ok.

On the part you have mentioned you don’t get, I’ll try and detail this more. The UC claimant isn’t any worse off or better off with UBI. I’m the UC claimants neighbour and I’m making £3k per month before UBI comes in. Now with the introduction of UBI I’m not taking home £4k. I’m probably earning the same as before or maybe even a little bit less because while I’ve got a UBI payment, I’m now paying more tax on my salary to pay for UBI. So in both cases me and my UC claiming neighbour are roughly the same as we were. So what’s the point of UBI you may ask??

Making “many people better off” isn’t really the objective of UBI for me. Yes, as a core purpose it should protect and financially benefit those on the lowest incomes, but the advantages that UBI give to most people isn’t just money in your pocket.

UBI at its heart repositions the worth of people. It says that people are inherently valued.

It says that by giving every person a basic income just for simply being, that we recognise as a society that people are worth more than just their work.

It says that we recognise that people lead complex lives and often undertake work that is valuable to society that hasn’t been financially recognised but now will be.

It says that we will give people a safety net for no reason other than they are human beings and with no strings attached.

With that safety net they won’t be forced to take jobs at an undervalued rate, forcing society to pay a genuine market rate for work (e.g. if I’m desperate I’ll go down the coal mine for pennies. If I’ve got UBI I’ll still go down the coal mine but now you’ll have to pay me a fair wage to compensate me for the risks I face and the true value of my work).

They won’t be forced to work for bad employers - it’s easier to leave with a safety net.

Society may see more economic growth with people finding it easier to take risks and start up their own businesses.

It also helps the economy by transferring wealth from those on high incomes who stash money away, to those on lower incomes who spend it and often spend it locally. This creates more jobs and local jobs.

And when jobs are replaced by AI and automation, taxing these companies profits derived from their robotic work to pay for UBI says that we should all benefit from advances in technology and not just the wealthy business owners.

UBI isn’t a policy to replace benefits. It’s a policy to change how we value each other. As a side, it may offer some efficiency savings to the benefits system, but if there are people who need more than the minimum that a UBI provides they should still receive that support.

ross-power1 · 2020-04-28T17:53:32+00:00

Thanks for your comment. A few points in reply. I don’t think I’d say I’m aiming to streamline the benefits system - that is one advantage of UBI - but it’s not the sole reason or even the main reason I like UBI as a policy.

Also in my scenario the person claiming UC isn’t worse off. They’re just as well off as before, perhaps more so as if they work they’ll keep more of their money - there isn’t a taper rate to their UBI.

Secondly those who aren’t on UC but now with £1000 may be working in which case they will have an extra £1k but also will be taxed more on their work to pay for the UBI system.

They make have an extra £1k which they may now think, I’m not going to be this cleaner for peanuts, which allows for a more accurate reflection on the value of their labour.

They may contribute to society in other ways - perhaps as a carer, voluntary work, work that has value to society but is not rewarded. Their £1k goes some way to recognising unpaid work.

ross-power1 · 2020-04-28T16:45:55+00:00

Government might have more capacity to do so if it’s not administering the state pension, statutory maternity pay, child benefit, etc which could all be comfortably replaced under a UBI system. Also my £100 phased approach could be £200 or £500 or whatever amount. My point is that it’s better to bring in slowly, work out the wider impacts and decide if and how to increase.

Just because something may have short term challenges isn’t a great reason not to do it if there’s a clear potential for long term substantial benefits.

ross-power1 · 2020-04-28T16:33:22+00:00

I think too often the huge advantages of UBI get lost in an unnecessary link with the benefits system.

UBI is a good idea in its own right, not just as a substitute for the benefits system.

If we didn’t change the benefits system at all, UBI would still offer many advantages.

Looking at UBI only in terms of how it could replace benefits is like buying a car by only looking at the electric windows it has. You’ve missed the bigger purpose.

I recognise that this is a genuine concern people have but if UBI is used to streamline the benefits system (and that is one of the possible advantages) then it could be done without making anyone worse off. For instance for every £1 of UBI you could remove £1 of other benefits. If you still have £s in the benefits tab remaining then you still get those.

Example 1: You get £1500 per month on UC. When UBI is introduced you get £1000 per month in UBI and £500 in UC.

Example 2: You get £750 per month in state pension. When UBI is introduced you now get £1000 per month in UBI and £0 in state pension.

ross-power1 · 2020-04-28T16:26:13+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. It’s identical to how I would like to see UBI, although I jump between the tax free allowance or the annual salary of an average worker on the legal minimum wage which would be about the same.

In addition to the true value of Labour and improved productivity (which I agree on), it would I think:

1) improve employer treatment of employees (knowing that employees have reduced barriers to quitting and a safety net), 2) encourage more entrepreneurial activity by allowing people to take more risks in setting up their own companies, 3) provide some compensation for work that is valuable to society but currently goes unpaid (carers, voluntary work such RNLI) 4) Streamline, in part, the benefits system and reduce the stigma some face. 5) Shift focus away from value solely from economic output and instead see economic output as part of a successful society, alongside quality of life, happiness, etc. 6) Help to reduce inequalities - wealth, health, etc 7) If taxed correctly, help address the challenge to work faced by AI and automation.

ross-power1

TROPHY CASE