Tolya Ugajin
-
Posts
4,752 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Tolya Ugajin
-
-
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
I say we put it to a test.
Let's spend the rest of the thread talking about how Tolya doesn't understand jokes.
It'll be a experiment!
/me stares in 'Murican
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Garnet Psaltery said:
Good grief, @Tolya Ugajin, my posting immediately preceding yours gave a perfectly good reason why the OP should not add to her posting. Either you didn't read mine, or you thought my advice worthless. How often do you read the land ads anyway?
I seldom read all the posts when it is a pretty straightforward question, so no I didn't read yours, and I never read the ads, since I don't need land.
-
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:
Derail time!
I have to say, I wasn't impressed with Voyager when it came out, but now that I am forcing myself to watch every episode in order (it's a little better than before, but I sure wish 7 of 9 would get here!) I'm really starting to like Janeway. I love Sci-Fi with strong female leads.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Well, it did have, in a sort of minor way, a point: I was suggesting that the chorus of "I've never heard of it" here is predicated, apparently, on the unspoken assumption that "If I haven't heard of it, then it can't be very important or worthwhile." The point being that Drune's value has little or nothing to do with your certification of familiarity and approval. Just as your importance (and you are terribly important, you know) isn't a function of Drune's knowledge of you.
Mostly, however, I was making a joke, you irony-challenged, humourless capitalist Schweinehund.
I think most people are not making the point that "If I haven't heard of it, then it can't be very important or worthwhile." but rather "It may not be the hugely popular place you, OP, think it is". We all tend to think our favorite little corners of SL are far more important or popular than they really are.
I may be a capitalist Schweinehund, but I am not irony challenged or hunourless, thank you very much!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
Drune is (was?), by all accounts, a really nicely done sim. It had become something of a favourite with photographers: you'll see a number of pics set there in the picture threads in "Your Avatar." I've been there twice, but never ventured outside a club there, so I can't really speak from personal experience to how well done it is (was?), but the images I've seen suggest it was a worthwhile place to visit. Personally, I think SL rather overdoes the dystopian / Blade Runner kind of thing (just as we have a surfeit of charming rural sims with abandoned pickup trucks), but then that's not really my thing, so my opinion doesn't actually matter much in that regard.
@Pavon2 -- it sounds as though not all hope is lost, so keep your fingers crossed?
I'll just say, as I said when we went through this with the imminent closing of Hangars Liquides (another dystopian sim), that Linden Lab, if they give any thought at all to stepping in, will engage in the kind of calculation that you might expect any for-profit business to perform: they'll ask themselves whether their product, i.e., SL, is sufficiently enhanced by the sim to justify the expense that might be involved in supporting it. LL doesn't keep sims going out of the goodness of their hearts, or a sense of public spiritedness: they do so, I very much suspect, on the basis of a cost/benefits analysis.
Presumably, having done so, they decided that ChouChou was worth saving. They possibly may make the same determination about Drune (which, despite what is being said here, does seem to have actually been a pretty popular place). And they might well be wrong in their analysis, one way or another.
The point is, arguments about whether LL should or shouldn't save sims like Drune are kinda missing the point: LL will support them, or not, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the kinds of arguments being made here. You can argue with the logic of any decision they may ultimately make, but it's not actually about saving something because it's "good" or even "popular": it is, as I say, a calculation. The best we can really do is have faith that LL knows what they are doing when they make such decisions.
As for supporting it through donations, group fees, and so on -- does anyone really know a sim that is self-sustaining in this way? The only way, I suspect, that this can be accomplished is through rentals. And that can sometimes be a problematic solution as well.
If I read you correctly, you are espousing the idea of either LL giving them a tier break so the owner's can financially sustain it, or taking over the sim and making it essentially a non-profit endeavor. One of the factors in that cost benefit analysis would be the impact of such a decision on the other sim owners who are a big part of LL's revenue stream. Do other sim owners then threaten to close and whip up their regulars to petition LL to save them? Do they just get disgusted with yet another example of inconsistent practices and shut down? Your post lists 3 such potential instances - risking 30 more seems a bad decision. But, you're definitely right, LL will do what they think is best for LL, and there are lots of other sims that are someone's "best ever" to go see.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
It's never heard of you either.
And yet . . . here you are.
ummm is that supposed to mean something? Or is it some sort of existential Zen thing?
-
5 hours ago, MaisyDrew said:
I made a post to sell my house and land, and now I am not selling it so want to remove the post. No one commented so I would like to know how to remove or edit the post.
Edit it to say it's sold so people don't bother you.
Or, just start a political discussion with it - that'll get it shut down
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, Pavon2 said:
I have removed the link to Flickr.
Why instead of attacking me immediately, pointing out what I do wrong, and give irrelevant answer, why don't you think for a moment that an amazing sim is gone, something which could bring people to Second Life, because there was simply nothing else even close to this place ever on the grind. And this isn't just my opinion, but a feeling many people have.
Second Life needs something that would bring new people in. And this sim was one of these things.
You don't care? Then why are you here?
Alwin didn't even come close to an attack. Her answer was succinct and accurate. She probably doesn't "think for a moment" because there are literally thousands (if not tens of thousands) of sims and she's never been to Drune - I've never heard of it myself. Great sims come and great sims change and great sims go every week. LL is watching the cash flow - they can't be taking over sims that the owners no longer want, they have enough work keeping mainland up to date.
-
7 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:
This quote from Luna...
"... Brain development doesn't mature until around age 25 (and you KNOW I was referring to GIRLS because I used that word).
Until brains are fully developed such abilities as decision making, impulse control, logical & organized thinking, & risk management do not work as well......reminded me of a short piece I read recently about how confused our policy-making logic is about when a person is, or is not, an adult (The piece was "Let Them Smoke" in National Review).
The author points out that we consider a person adult enough to drive a car (a deadly weapon!) at 16. We consider them adult enough to vote, drink beer and wine, and to fight and die for their country at 18. We consider them adult enough to buy tobacco or other nicotine products, and hard liquor, at 21. There are bills under consideration to raise the age to buy a firearm to 21 or more. And yet they are still enough of a minor to be on their parents' medical insurance until 26. The article did not add, but I will, that rental car companies don't think you're adult enough to rent their cars until 26 or 27.
This is illogical. If a person is mature enough to exercise the sovereign franchise at 18 (and some are advocating for 16!) then they should be considered an "adult" and capable of mature judgment for ALL purposes. If they are not mature enough to make life choices about their own bodies like smoking and drinking until 21 (or 25, according to Luna), then they should be treated as a minor child for ALL purposes until they are that age.
My personal view is that 18 is a right and proper age of adulthood, but that may be due to cultural bias and the many sensible young adults of my acqaintance.
I once read an article in the Onion (so, yes, it was satire) that was actually about the abortion debate, but could easily be applied to adulthood. Can't find it online, this was back when I was in college (Early 90's). It basically went like this.
Life doesn't begin at conception.
Life doesn't begin at birth.
Life doesn't begin at 18.
Life begins at $40K/yr. Until then, you're just a clump of cells.
(runs away laughing maniacally waiting for THAT hand grenade go off)
-
1
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:
It has been in place since before I was even born actually, in one form or another. The main qualification is that the parent(both, if present, not simply one if both are present unless there is some medical reason that makes one parent incapable of caring for the child(ren)) must be working and/or attending a higher education at least 20 hours a week.
The funding tends to come, primarily, to the states in the form of Federal Child Care and Development Block grants, but is also funded by other federal funding collected in the form of taxes, etc..
The money is paid directly to the carer of the child(ren), so that it is used for that purpose and ONLY that purpose.
It's actually a really good program, and a lot more people use it than people think.
Wow, learn something new every day! Come to think of it, now I remember something about a friend a few years back getting some sort of subsidized day care while in college as a single mom. I figured it was from the university. Sounds like a reasonable investment of tax dollars.
-
5 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:
It IS federal and yes, they very much do, whether or not people use it, may differ, but it's a federal program.
I've never heard of free child care as a federal program. Is it some sort of subsidy program to help people meet the work requirements of welfare to work regs?
-
29 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:
If it isn't subject to unbiased peer review it isn't "science data". Period. A lot of corporate lobbying, think tank spin and "political 'studies'" attempt to masquerade as "science data" but that doesn't make it so.
Difference is, she's unwilling to take the actual source data (government records) as fact, when it's as simple as "we spent this much".
Also, peer review ain't all it's cracked up to be, especially if the reviewers suffer from group think. If your paper disagrees with "settled science", for instance, reviewers may very well reject it based simply on that. Meanwhile absolute rubbish can get approved by peer review because, well, it sounds like I should agree with it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
I do, but I charge a WHOLE lot for it, because I'm a true capitalist (not a neoliberal)
Good! It drives my girl crazy but, whenever I search on MP, I always sort price high to low because I generally figure better product costs more and what costs more is more likely to be better product.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
In some thread somewhere recently, there were some sarcastic comments about people posting IBTL.
HOWEVER, this thread is so far off track, it has jumped the ocean to other continents.
Thus............... IBTL............ because it will either get locked or 75% of the entire thread will be deleted along with a Mod warning.
lol this hasn't gotten nasty at all, so I can't imagine it getting locked. Besides, it's my darned thread I'll derail it if I want 😛
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
For some reason when I first saw this I thought of Moses bringing the 10 Commandments down from Sinai!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
The wealth at the top is built on the backs of the poor. The wealthy must have workers to increase their wealth and groowwwww. They drive down the poor person's benefits in society just to line their pockets...because they can. It's not fair.
OK, Comrade, back to work (gives her a big hug)
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
It is over 15%, and as a self-employed person that's what I pay. Whatever the hell you want to call it, it's on top of one's regular tax bracket determination.
OK, let's call a truce! I need to get back to work, and you need to make some trees 😛 We're not going to agree on this, and I don't want to get to where we're getting mad at each other.
For what it's worth, the woman I am marrying holds pretty much all the same opinions as you. So, we never talk politics.
Hey, do you do custom work? (changing the subject very deliberately)
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
I understand more than you think I do.
I'm not a Democrat, and I believe nothing without a lot of research.
And yet you've apparently done none. Also, I didn't say you WERE a Democrat, even though you've repeatedly pushed Bernie who is running as...a Dem. I told you that you were being lied to by them. Mostly through their mouthpieces - most of the media.
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
How do you know Mr. Bezos would abolish his business if he only made a measly 5 million per year?
He's not making "billions" in income per year. His stock price might appreciate that much, but if you're going to start taxing stock appreciation before it's even sold, congrats, you just shut down the US economy, because nobody is going to invest in stocks.
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
It is over 15%, and as a self-employed person that's what I pay. Whatever the hell you want to call it, it's on top of one's regular tax bracket determination.
Umm, no it's not, it actually comes out before your taxes are calculated. And claiming that the rate is 15% when for the vast majority of it is paid for by one's employer is facile.
-
31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
I believe that Jeff Bezos should keep 5 million and send the rest of his billions to the poor....
So you're fine with outright robbery. OK. You just made 750,000 employees in the US alone unemployed, because no opportunity to get rich, no business created.
-
33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
I'm talking about Science that is not funded by a corporation or political party. Sometimes you have to drill down to make sure it's relatively bias-free...but there is some good Science out there.
Unless the scientist is independently wealthy, the money to do the research is coming from either the government (by definition political actors) or corporations or nonprofits, who themselves have agendas.
-
37 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
They do have to pay their Social Security taxes (15% in the US).
But you are actually proving a lot of my points -- wages are so low in the US that a good percentage of citizens aren't even IN a tax category. And this is because the workerbees are busy making money for the wealthy while not getting compensated adequately for their work.
Social security tax (which is a payroll tax, not an income tax, although I understand it's a subtle difference) is not 15%, period. Even if you are self employed, it is 12.4%. If you include the Medicare tax it is 7.65% for the employee and, yes, if self employed then it gets to 15.3%. The combined tax is referred to as FICA.
You clearly do not understand taxation in the US and how even middle class people pay very little, so let me help. The individual tax rate from $0 to roughly $10K is 10%. Yet, nobody who earns $10K would pay anything, because the individual standard deduction is $12,200 (thanks to the Trump tax cut it's about twice as big as it was before) - and, FICA is deducted from your income first. Hence, someone working full time at the federal minimum wage ($14,500/yr) would at most pay $119 in federal income taxes. But, that assumes they have no other deductions or credits - ANYONE making that little would have plenty. So, at most, their federal income tax effective rate is 0.8%, and in all likelihood they will get more back than they may have had withheld. By contrast, all those greedy evil rich people on average have an effective rate about 27%.
Let's try someone (single, no kids) making about double the median income, so a gross income of roughly $62K. Are they "poor"? Knock off FICA, down to $57,256. Knock off standard deduction, down to $45,057. If that were it, their income tax would be, AT MOST, $5,700 - or 9.2% effective rate. So, solidly middle class, still paying less a third the rate of the rich who supposedly pay nothing. BUT, one would think they are contributing to a 401(k) - that's all tax free. 4% is a typical contribution, so their tax bill just went DOWN by $550. Imagine that, put 4% of your middle class income away for retirement, and you eliminate your tax burden by almost 10%. Hey, they have health care, right? But, there are out of pocket expenses (copays, deductibles, prescriptions, cavities, glasses, etc,) Well, guess what, most employers offers medical flexible spending accounts. The maximum for an employer provided flexible spending account is $2,600 for the year. So, another $570 in reduced taxes and your tax rate is now under 8% - a quarter what the rich pay. Mortgage and property taxes? Deductible. State income taxes? Deductible. Sure, there is a cap, but at a $10K cap, this person ain't paying that much; it's really only fairly well off people who were hurt by that little but of the Trump tax plan. Paying student loans? Interest is deductible. Wait, you have kids? Standard deductions for each, child tax credits, childcare is tax deductible. Need I go on?
You're being lied to by the Democrats when they tell you that the rich pay nothing and the poor pay it all. Since you haven't yet answered my question about "fair share" I will tell you my definition. By income group (top 1%, top 10%, bottom 50%, whatever) that group (not individual, group) should be contributing about the same percentage of the overall taxes as their share of the overall income. Seems fair, right? You get 20% of the pie, you foot 20% of the bill. Well, guess what, the evil super rich, the 1%, get 19.72% of the pie, but pay 37.32% of the bill. By contrast, the bottom 50% (we're into the lower end of "middle class" here) get 11.59% of the pie, yet only pay for 3.04% of it. Now, I ask you, if you go and buy a pie with your friends, is it fair for you to get roughly 1/8th of the pie, but not even cover the sales tax? Meanwhile, your sister gets 2 pieces (actually less) and pays for more than a 3rd of it?
Doesn't seem "fair" to me.
-
Just now, Luna Bliss said:
I like Science data...it's less likely to be influenced by political agendas (but it can be).
Actually, "science data" is far more easily influenced by political agendas - witness the "data" put out by the scientists for tobacco and oil companies. If you think the same type of "interpretations" of the data don't happen based on who is funding the research or by the scientists' own biases (especially their drive to be published and to secure future funding) then I do indeed have a bridge to sell you.
Meanwhile, the petty functionaries with clipboards (one of my favorite Sheldon Cooper putdowns) operate with (almost) complete visibility to the public knowing that getting caught lying would lose them their cushy jobs and pensions, and, besides, everything comes out in government so you know you'll get caught. Just ask the Cheetoh man, who, my my sure seems worried about Bolton's book!
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Drune is gone :(((( Why Linden Lab. can't keep it going?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
I dunno, I haven't heard of most of the Gor sims. Amazing how big some of the Gor places are. One I've been visiting is 7 sims, most of them pretty unused. How do they pay for them (now it's a Gor derail, y'all)