c4countdown

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:40 pm Anyone having more than 2 children should be taxed.
Equally, tax breaks for married couples without children.
Also it should be compulsory for couples to have parenting skills classes before starting a family

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:55 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:40 pm Anyone having more than 2 children should be taxed.
Equally, tax breaks for married couples without children.
Also it should be compulsory for couples to have parenting skills classes before starting a family

But who suffers the most in these bigger families when they're taxed more? Especially the poorer families. So regardless of what you think of the parents, it's not the fault of the children.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:30 pm How exactly would you enforce parenting skills classes before starting a family for the millions and millions of children, self included, whose conception was neither planned nor anticipated?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:39 pm Certain interests in this country would like people to believe that all the UK's monetary problems are caused by the poor and uneducated (and immigrants obviously). They are not.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:55 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:39 pm Certain interests in this country would like people to believe that all the UK's monetary problems are caused by the poor and uneducated (and immigrants obviously). They are not.

I wouldn't have said it was unpopular unless you are in the Tory party

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:27 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:55 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:40 pm Anyone having more than 2 children should be taxed.
Equally, tax breaks for married couples without children.
Also it should be compulsory for couples to have parenting skills classes before starting a family

But who suffers the most in these bigger families when they're taxed more? Especially the poorer families. So regardless of what you think of the parents, it's not the fault of the children.

OK then 2 children and anymore are taken away for adoption by childless couples.
Problem solved (slightly less drastic than forced sterilisation)

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:26 pm Great thread. Some truly horrendous stuff. It's also amazing what people feel compelled to reply to.
I think it would be good to list these out and all have a vote on how appalling we all find each one so there is a winner.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:07 pm It seems impossible to enforce any limit that controls or restricts people's reproductive capacities wiothout being actively murderous. So any opinion along those lines isn't going to find any popularity with me. Education of responsibilities and ethics is all good though.

Largely agree with all the stuff in this thread about alcohol. And tea!

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:26 pm Great thread. Some truly horrendous stuff. It's also amazing what people feel compelled to reply to.
I think it would be good to list these out and all have a vote on how appalling we all find each one so there is a winner.

Dan Byrom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:15 pm Picnic is the best chocolate bar

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am The whole digitisation of services has gone too far, and is really just the result of high-ups being lazy and not wanting to do any work or employ anyone. This applies to things such as car parks where you have to pay using your phone, anywhere that insists you download an app in order to use a service, or indeed businesses where you have to go through about ten different automated chats on the phone/website in order to actually access anything, and even then you're lucky if they actually help you instead of just trying to direct you elsewhere. The result is a net negative on society where not only do you have many people excluded by virtue of not having the capability to navigate these systems, you have a society that is getting progressively lazier. All the people willing to digitise everything in order to save a few seconds because it's just too inconvenient to do anything via a physical process are not only just blindly handing over their data most of the time, they're becoming more contented in just thinking a lot less and letting others/machines do it for them. A lot of people would store their house key on their phone if it were possible. I get that we're already at a stage where mass data scraping is possible behind the scenes, but I don't get why you'd voluntarily add to this for the sake of saving a few seconds.

My sister, a guide leader, recently discovered that more than half of her group (many of whom are in secondary school) were completely incapable of reading an analogue clock, and in an activity that involved some basic maths (like, 12x4 level of basic), where they insisted phones were put away, a large proportion seemed totally dumbfounded at the prospect of working it out without a calculator.

Phil H wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:29 pm Creating more CGI and animated porn for the enjoyment of paedophiles would likely reduce offending and therefore be a good thing.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am The whole digitisation of services has gone too far, and is really just the result of high-ups being lazy and not wanting to do any work or employ anyone. This applies to things such as car parks where you have to pay using your phone, anywhere that insists you download an app in order to use a service, or indeed businesses where you have to go through about ten different automated chats on the phone/website in order to actually access anything, and even then you're lucky if they actually help you instead of just trying to direct you elsewhere. The result is a net negative on society where not only do you have many people excluded by virtue of not having the capability to navigate these systems, you have a society that is getting progressively lazier. All the people willing to digitise everything in order to save a few seconds because it's just too inconvenient to do anything via a physical process are not only just blindly handing over their data most of the time, they're becoming more contented in just thinking a lot less and letting others/machines do it for them. A lot of people would store their house key on their phone if it were possible. I get that we're already at a stage where mass data scraping is possible behind the scenes, but I don't get why you'd voluntarily add to this for the sake of saving a few seconds.

My sister, a guide leader, recently discovered that more than half of her group (many of whom are in secondary school) were completely incapable of reading an analogue clock, and in an activity that involved some basic maths (like, 12x4 level of basic), where they insisted phones were put away, a large proportion seemed totally dumbfounded at the prospect of working it out without a calculator.

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am The whole digitisation of services has gone too far, and is really just the result of high-ups being lazy and not wanting to do any work or employ anyone. This applies to things such as car parks where you have to pay using your phone, anywhere that insists you download an app in order to use a service, or indeed businesses where you have to go through about ten different automated chats on the phone/website in order to actually access anything, and even then you're lucky if they actually help you instead of just trying to direct you elsewhere. The result is a net negative on society where not only do you have many people excluded by virtue of not having the capability to navigate these systems, you have a society that is getting progressively lazier. All the people willing to digitise everything in order to save a few seconds because it's just too inconvenient to do anything via a physical process are not only just blindly handing over their data most of the time, they're becoming more contented in just thinking a lot less and letting others/machines do it for them. A lot of people would store their house key on their phone if it were possible. I get that we're already at a stage where mass data scraping is possible behind the scenes, but I don't get why you'd voluntarily add to this for the sake of saving a few seconds.

• Tap your card or phone on a reader.

• Search in the Play Store / App Store for the correct app (beware of similarly-named phonies created to scam you)
• Install the app
• Create an account
• Give them your email address and phone number, typing them in on a phone keyboard
• Probably skip through multiple screens trying to sign you up to newsletters
• Eventually get to the payment screen, where you have to enter your card number in full, again using the phone keyboard

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:04 am Kelly Holmes double gold in Athens was the greatest British performance at a single Olympic games

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am My sister, a guide leader, recently discovered that more than half of her group (many of whom are in secondary school) were completely incapable of reading an analogue clock, and in an activity that involved some basic maths (like, 12x4 level of basic), where they insisted phones were put away, a large proportion seemed totally dumbfounded at the prospect of working it out without a calculator.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:34 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am The whole digitisation of services has gone too far, and is really just the result of high-ups being lazy and not wanting to do any work or employ anyone. This applies to things such as car parks where you have to pay using your phone, anywhere that insists you download an app in order to use a service, or indeed businesses where you have to go through about ten different automated chats on the phone/website in order to actually access anything, and even then you're lucky if they actually help you instead of just trying to direct you elsewhere. The result is a net negative on society where not only do you have many people excluded by virtue of not having the capability to navigate these systems, you have a society that is getting progressively lazier. All the people willing to digitise everything in order to save a few seconds because it's just too inconvenient to do anything via a physical process are not only just blindly handing over their data most of the time, they're becoming more contented in just thinking a lot less and letting others/machines do it for them. A lot of people would store their house key on their phone if it were possible. I get that we're already at a stage where mass data scraping is possible behind the scenes, but I don't get why you'd voluntarily add to this for the sake of saving a few seconds.

Perhaps predictably as a software and technology person, I don't agree with the general argument here. Nowadays most services let you do simple things for yourself on a website rather than making you call a number, wait on hold, and ask a human like the bad old days, and I much prefer this. I always go to the self-checkout machine rather than the human checkout. The increasing digitisation of our lives has plenty of benefits and I'd rather it stayed than disappeared.

However, this does not apply to the specific case of services which require you to install their app to pay, which can get directly in the bin.

The Technology Connections YouTube channel had a bit about this, referring to EV charging but the general point is the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ&t=2032s

Payment is a solved problem now, and has been for years. Thanks to advancing technology, we live in a world where paying for something, even at some vending machines and market stalls, is as easy as:

• Tap your card or phone on a reader.

You can't get much easier than that. However, some companies (particularly, but not exclusively, car park operators) instead want you to:

• Search in the Play Store / App Store for the correct app (beware of similarly-named phonies created to scam you)
• Install the app
• Create an account
• Give them your email address and phone number, typing them in on a phone keyboard
• Probably skip through multiple screens trying to sign you up to newsletters
• Eventually get to the payment screen, where you have to enter your card number in full, again using the phone keyboard

From a user experience point of view this is a disaster from start to finish. They may reason that "it's only one app, and once you've installed it you don't need to go through all the setup again", but that's because they live in a make-believe world where they're the only company providing that service and have no competitors. The reality is that the user ends up with half a dozen different apps on their phone, one for each company, and they've used each of them once. Even if by some unlikely flurry of co-operation they all got together and used the same app, what's the point? Contactless payment already exists.

They even want you to call the app the "convenient" option. Some charge an extra 30p "convenience" fee for using this service instead of inserting coins.

"But sometimes we can't install a payment machine! Some car parks might not have power or internet!" This is rubbish. If there used to be a machine that took coins, then there's a power supply. And again, thanks to the world's increasing digitisation, everywhere has internet now. If the car park really is in one of the increasingly-rare no-signal spots, then how do you expect the app to work? They make the "no internet" argument at the same time as expecting you to have internet in the same place.

Most technological developments are some kind of advance, but payment by app isn't. In all respects, it's worse than alternatives which already exist.

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:36 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am My sister, a guide leader, recently discovered that more than half of her group (many of whom are in secondary school) were completely incapable of reading an analogue clock, and in an activity that involved some basic maths (like, 12x4 level of basic), where they insisted phones were put away, a large proportion seemed totally dumbfounded at the prospect of working it out without a calculator.

One of the first signs that you're getting old is when you start coming out with this sort of stuff!

I did think that times tables were tested at primary school, but there are things that were basic that are just not necessary any more. In the immortal words of Sam Cooke, how many people nowadays "know what a slide rule is for"? Or could use log tables? Do they still do long division? I'm sure I could, but I can't for the life of me remember the method that looked like long division you used to find square roots. Who needs it?

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:16 pm

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:36 pm

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:55 am My sister, a guide leader, recently discovered that more than half of her group (many of whom are in secondary school) were completely incapable of reading an analogue clock, and in an activity that involved some basic maths (like, 12x4 level of basic), where they insisted phones were put away, a large proportion seemed totally dumbfounded at the prospect of working it out without a calculator.

One of the first signs that you're getting old is when you start coming out with this sort of stuff!

I did think that times tables were tested at primary school, but there are things that were basic that are just not necessary any more. In the immortal words of Sam Cooke, how many people nowadays "know what a slide rule is for"? Or could use log tables? Do they still do long division? I'm sure I could, but I can't for the life of me remember the method that looked like long division you used to find square roots. Who needs it?

Ability to do basic arithmetic and calculated reasoning shouldn't be something people should be happy to lose. Certainly, you'll nearly always have a phone that can do the calculation for you if you desire, but there are two reasons why I still think it's hugely important to have a basic level of skill:
- If you type something in wrong, or get given data that is wrong, you're far more likely to notice it when it might otherwise pass you by (and have consequences.)
- If you are ever in a situation where you haven't got access to a calculator, it's helpful if you're not totally lost if you do need to work something out. Admittedly this is extremely unlikely, but so are many things in life that people have contingencies for.

Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:00 am It's fine for cyclists to break traffic lights. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should go full pelt through them, I treat red lights like a yield sign rather than a stop sign. If it safe to do so, and you are keeping an eye out for potential pedestrians I don't think it's that big a deal to go through a red light. Sometimes it's actually in traffic's interest that cyclists move on quicker than the cars. Especially if the cars are turning and the cyclist is going straight.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:46 am I get my hands dirty at work so will always wash before.
I know my member is clean and I do believe urine is sterile.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:56 pm Top quality stuff from Conor!

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:26 pm And I'm pretty sure a "member" that has spent its day fermenting in sweaty underwear in close proximity to a bumhole isn't quite as clean as you might imagine. (Note to self - take hand sanitiser to my next scrabble tournament)

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:05 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:26 pm And I'm pretty sure a "member" that has spent its day fermenting in sweaty underwear in close proximity to a bumhole isn't quite as clean as you might imagine. (Note to self - take hand sanitiser to my next scrabble tournament)

Who mentioned underwear

Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:17 pm Sod the hand sanitizer, can I please have some mind Harpic pronto-much appreciated.

(Just wash your sodding hands people xD)

Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:02 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 8:07 pm It seems impossible to enforce any limit that controls or restricts people's reproductive capacities wiothout being actively murderous. So any opinion along those lines isn't going to find any popularity with me. Education of responsibilities and ethics is all good though.

Largely agree with all the stuff in this thread about alcohol. And tea!

Finally, someone agrees with the tea! If you've not tried it sans milk and sugar, give it a go for a week. An acquired taste, but brilliant. Agree with not banning booze, for the US proved that didn't work. However, some changes

Various responses to the sex before marriage thing. There is of course a theological bent to my argument about what the intent of sex and marriage from that standpoint-I know for many of you, that would raise more. However, more people waiting would benefit society to an extent (in my view). A lot of society focuses on sex wayyy too much when it comes to looking for a partner. If it was more normalized to wait, then people wouldn't feel pressured to do so, and people would maybe look for other things in a partner.

Education and contraception should of course be provided in full (from what I've seen at work, current provisions in terms of both are only a net positive to society), and no one should be judged or shunned by society if they do not abstain until marriage (lessons from history, as Fiona alluded to)

(NOTE-the asexual giving his views on this topic would like you to know that yes, he is fully aware you could cut the irony attached to this statement with a knife)

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 1:45 pm

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

It's an interesting idea, but how are you going to finance the foodbanks for all the many more people that will need them if you have less taxpayer money coming in?

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:36 pm

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

You've changed

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:16 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:36 pm

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

You've changed

Not directed specifically at CT, but across the population the older you get, the more political views can change......



Makes sense I suppose that when you are young you tend to not have much and therefore want the wealth shared, but when you are old and have accrued your wealth, you want to keep it!

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:16 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:36 pm

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:33 pm - Tax here is too high, and actually given that high earners have already paid a lot of tax the marginal rates should be inverted: earnings over 125k should be taxed at 20%, whereas up to 50k should be more like 40%

You've changed

Not directed specifically at CT, but across the population the older you get, the more political views can change......



Makes sense I suppose that when you are young you tend to not have much and therefore want the wealth shared, but when you are old and have accrued your wealth, you want to keep it!

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:48 am You should have to pay university tuition fees.