Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,190 Excellent

1 Follower

About AyelaNewLife

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

850 profile views
  1. Well, which one is it? Tier 1+2, or tier 2? The difference between the two is vast. 99%+ of the population is tier 1.
  2. See, this crucial piece of information that you didn't actually state in your original post changes the meaning of your request entirely. The overwhelming majority of residents in SL are tier 1; and are not content creators at all, they are consumers. All of the fee waivers you've requested would impact them too, as well as private and public non-profit sim owners, private renters, casual gacha resellers... there's only ~2000 residents who withdraw more than $10,000 each year, and so would need tier 3 or above. I've got no idea at all why you'd frame such a petition as "please help the creators that rely on this RL income" when proposing fee relief for the masses of the population, that seems counter-productive at best. Exceptionally unhelpful, misleading and confusing. And your answers since have all reinforced this incorrect perception. So to address what you meant to write: do I think that most private region tier (but not mainland or other land fees) should be waived for the next few months? No, that's insane. This kills the Linden Lab. It's also strangely and unjustifiable prescriptive, arbitrarily providing great financial relief to some but not to others.
  3. If you actually cared for artists and small shops, you wouldn't have made a petition calling for sweeping fee relief for only tier 2 residents and above.
  4. You're still refusing to engage with the core problem here. You claimed that the incomes of tier 2 artists and creators who rely on online sales (through SL or other platforms) have been devastated by the Covid-19 outbreak. This is not correct. The virtual creative economy is going through a golden era right now, and anyone who relies on virtual sales for income will likely be making much more money than they could have anticipated just a few weeks ago. The foundation you built your argument on is not coherent with reality. And that undermines your entire case. I'd actually be fine if your request was a blanket request for waiving certain fees. I might not agree with such a request, but it would have been valid. But to single out the thin slice of the SL population who has gained the most from this outbreak and request fee relief? No. Absolutely not.
  5. It's offensive to me because I work for the UK government on their response to this outbreak. My colleagues and I have been working ridiculous hours developing entire public services in the space of days to shield the most vulnerable and to give them the vital support they need to keep themselves safe; while other colleagues have worked just as hard (if not more so) to roll out sweeping measures of support for employees and employers, at a vast cost to the nation. We're literally bankrupting the country at a time when tax income is at it's lowest in decades, because the need is that great... and yet we can't help everyone, and people are suffering with every day it takes us to get this vital work done and with every loophole we miss. And to be clear, our role in this is nothing compared to the (often tragic) sacrifices made across our health service on a daily basis, to keep other people safe and alive. And then you swan in, state a falsehood about how virtual incomes are suffering at a time of unprecedented boom in the online economy, and then demand that the people making a significant wage from SL (now more so than ever before) get handed what amounts to a virtual tax break. Only those people though; everyone else, including those who have actually suffered financial hardship from this outbreak or those who fund sims themselves or run at a break-even, still has to pay their fair share. It's ridiculous. So yes, your request is offensive to me. And your petition is making very little progress because the wider SL population thinks your request is wrong, and potentially offensive.
  6. I know I'm digging really deep for a silver lining here... but that is some refreshing honesty. I'd honestly much rather deal with someone like that than a "I'm not x, but..."
  7. I mean this is just the opposite of reality. Virtual business is booming right now (SL or otherwise), and people are collectively spending more time and Lindens inworld than they have in years. Relief and support schemes across the world are being rolled out at astronomical expense to protect the most vulnerable and the most deserving. Whether that's food packages for those too highly at risk to safely shop for themselves or income support for the vast numbers who lost their job overnight with no scope for alternative employment in the foreseeable future. For these people, this kind of support is a matter of life and death; which is why governments and employers alike are crippling themselves with future debt to keep these people safe during this time of great need. And you come here and demand that those who have benefited financially from this crisis deserve even more financial support? Are you kidding me? I can't tell if it's just ignorance or raw arrogant entitlement that has led to this... but wow. A crisis really does bring out the worst in people.
  8. I've cut out social media entirely. The nature of my job means I have my finger of the pulse of what we're doing as a nation (UK) to deal with this outbreak, certainly more so than the vast majority of people. And Facebook etc is full of people, often well educated people, spouting utter nonsense and media-distorted half-truths. Huge numbers of people that simply refuse to stop yelling "floppy hair man bad" at everything that happens. Even when I resist the urge to realign people's perceptions with reality, it's just so draining... So screw that. They can moan about how the government is sitting on a mountain of tests that it's refusing to run (what in the heck), or endlessly repeating the refuted lie that the original strategy was to push for herd immunity, or how ibuprofen either makes the disease better or worse depending on the day of the week... their delusion won't change reality. And my self care is frankly more important.
  9. As someone who was receiving non-emergency medical followup treatment during the first weeks of the restrictions (last appointment was ~10 days ago), I am exceptionally grateful that they continued to provide this service for as long as it was safe to do so. Non-emergency medical treatment, including dentistry, is not a luxury. It can make a vast difference to the quality of life of so many people, and can catch serious medical problems at an early stage, thus reducing pressure on emergency services and literally saving lives. Continuing to provide medical treatment for as long as it was safe to do so is not deserving of criticism at all. Sorry friend, but you're wrong on this one. Reserve that anger for those that deserve it. Like Mike "Knoblord" Ashley trying to convince the world that his empire of mediocre sportsware for the non-sporty was an essential service.
  10. (Insert joke about how many Lindens it takes to remove a forum post here)
  11. I'm just going to echo the fact that you are under no obligation to tell anyone anything about any RL details, including your RL sex/gender. You have to balance up immersion (yours and others) with people potentially choosing to feel deceived or acting abusively towards you, and it's ultimately a personal choice that no one else can or should make for you, and there isn't really a 'right' answer to this. When someone says "be whoever you want to be... just be honest", what they're actually saying is "you can dress up however you want, just be sure to warn people in advance so that they can wash their hands first, lest they catch the big gay through the keyboard". Feel free to ignore those people entirely.
  12. Not really; for every one of us that posts vaguely regularly, there's most likely a half dozen people reading the thread without posting. But unlike those inworld, we cannot easily see them or register their existence.
  13. So for context, I'm talking from a UK point of view here. The environmental impact of importing food will of course differ from wherever you might be, for exceptionally obvious reasons. If all else is equalised, meat has a far more significant environmental impact than plant-based foods; for example, growing veg in your garden compared to rearing livestock in your garden. But reality is far more complex than that overly simplistic approach. You simply cannot eat crops grown locally and externally all year round, the climate does not allow for that. In reality, your food usually goes through extra steps which adds to the environmental impact of said food, often significantly. There's three main types of "added carbon": Growing methods. For us in the UK, most of our tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and lettuces are grown either in the UK in massive greenhouses - artificially heated and lighted - or in Spain, grown under similar conditions outside a longer 'normal' growing season. Greenhouse-grown veg under these conditions have a similar carbon footprint to chicken and turkey. Transport. Putting any food on a cargo ship and hauling it around the world objectively increases its carbon footprint. Processing. Many meat-replacements require intensive processing stages compared to meat. For Quorn products, the processing stages account for just over half the total emissions for the total process, which includes shipment of raw inputs but not finished products. Now all of these stages can of course apply to meat too; which just makes that meat super-bad for the environment. For example, battery-reared beef account for most of the UK's soy consumption, and much of our off-season beef is imported from Argentina, and lamb from New Zealand. This food obviously has a far, far higher environmental impact than anything vegetarian or vegan. But not all meat is like that. I grew up surrounded by sheep grown on non-arable land, which we bought at a butcher's shop within walking distance of our house. Meat like this that's at the lowest end of the environmental impact scale can easily be on par with the worst non-meat alternatives. My overall point though was this: while on the whole non-meat is significantly better for the environment than meat, that rule is not universally true, and if you're seeking to lower your environmental impact then more care is needed in your choice of diet than simply "meat = bad". It's more complicated than that.
  • Create New...