1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread さんじゅうなな

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Samson, Apr 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,717
    Location:
    Scotland
    I was trying to buy a gig ticket off someone via PayPal, but there were a couple of snags and PayPal started complaining that it could not very I am me and refusing to confirm the payment. (In fairness, I am often uncertain if I am me. I'm basically just assuming, which obviously doesn't satisfy their rigorous security protocols.)

    Thing is, I tried send a payment to my girlfriend, and it cleared without issue, so it's not blocking all payments. The original payment was automatically converting into USD, which I take to indicate a non-European account, so would I be right in assuming that it's probably reacting to a number of international payments being made in quick succession? And, if so, am I likely to have to do anything about, or can I just leave it (say) a week, until I'm far enough from any "suspicious" activity?
     
  2. Valka D'Ur

    Valka D'Ur Hosting Iron Pen in A&E Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    22,080
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
    PayPal does have an actual customer service number which you can use to speak to a real person (harder to find on the website now than it used to be, but it's there). Try to phone them, explain this to a real person, and ask what's going on.

    I had to do that several years ago when they blocked me from buying some Doctor Who books from someone in the UK. I explained that I often bought books from people in the US, UK, and Australia, so this was not a 'suspicious' purchase and would they mind letting it through so I could pay the nice eBay seller within the time frame specified.
     
  3. Chukchi Husky

    Chukchi Husky Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,254
    Location:
    Carmarthenshire, Wales
    Why is voting for elections based on population and not on area?
     
  4. Samson

    Samson Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Because you want a majority of people to agree on how to run the country, not a majority of the land. Land does not revolt.
     
  5. Chukchi Husky

    Chukchi Husky Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,254
    Location:
    Carmarthenshire, Wales
    I'm told the problem with voting by population is that places such as the largest cities dominating the rest of the country. The example they gave me is that if American presidential elections were based on population, then whatever person that California votes for as president becomes the president of the United States, even if the rest of the country votes for someone else because the population of California is so large compared to the rest of the country.
     
  6. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    32,321
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Add that to the list of reasons why proportional representation is a good idea.
     
  7. Samson

    Samson Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    Cambridge
    The question I would ask to that is what is the actual problem there? Would it make a difference if instead of distinguishing between people based on if they live in a city or of they live in the country, you used wealth level instead? Eg. the problem with voting based on population not on wealth is the lower wealth categories dominating the rest of the country. The example is that if American presidential elections were based on population then whoever the non-billionares vote for becomes president of the United States, even if all the billionares vote for someone else because the population of non-billionares is so large compared to the rest of the country.
     
  8. Chukchi Husky

    Chukchi Husky Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,254
    Location:
    Carmarthenshire, Wales
    I'm told that proportional representation is bad, as it makes elections too complicated and it leads to weak, unstable governments.

    Cities are only a minority of a country, but their population makes them dominate elections. What people in cities want is contradictory to what the rest of the country wants.
     
  9. BenitoChavez

    BenitoChavez Whispering Walrus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Location:
    Alpha Quadrant
    California's population is around 40 million. The population of the US is 372 million. While that isn't exactly the voting population, the ratio is probably pretty similar. So no, California wouldn't decide the US elections if it were based on population.

    I'm sympathetic to the theoretical argument of tyranny of the majority (by population) over the minority. However, the real effects of the US election system which gives smaller states a larger vote has historically, and is currently producing some pretty awful results.
     
  10. Samson

    Samson Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    Cambridge
    I would say that is false, or at least that it is a classification with very little predictive power. A poor person in the country has much more in common with a poor person from the city than with a rich person in the country, especially in what they want from their government.
     
  11. haroon

    haroon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Location:
    dunya
    This is interesting, are you implying that most of the better income voter are libertarian conservative?
     
  12. Samson

    Samson Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    Cambridge
    No, just that what they want from the state is more different from what low income voters want that the difference between rural and urban voters.
     
  13. haroon

    haroon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Location:
    dunya
    But thats what I can comprehend from what your post implied, the liberatarian economics model is the most profitable economic model for the rich, as oppose to using their huge tax money to subsides the poor and the middle class, am I wrong in this?
     
  14. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    16,576
    In theory, yes. In actuality? Only sometimes. The economic circles are usually different and frequently adversarial. Government funding can be territorial when it comes to allotment.
     
  15. Samson

    Samson Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,444
    Location:
    Cambridge
    That is not what I was saying. I was trying to expose the flaw in the argument by splitting people not by population density but by income, and demonstrating that the argument becomes obviously facile.

    I was thinking about presenting it differently, and somewhat more contravertially:

    The purpose of democracy is to maintain the status quo by preventing revolution by giving the proletariat the illusion of choice. You do this by making it seem like their voice matters, and it matters as much as everyone else. If you replace this with land, the land is better represented but it will not revolt anyway but the people living in cities will.

    The libertarian economic model is probably the one currently that is likely to encourage revolt by the proletariat, as it leaves them with so little compared to the rich. This will hurt the status quo / the rich, and so is not implemented.
    Can you give any specifics? I have lived both in the city and the country and the basic demands are the same, some healthcare, some transport infrastructure, a bit of security and perhaps somewhere to live. The demands of the rich and those of the poor seem completely different, though I have never been in the former category.
     
    haroon likes this.
  16. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    16,576
    People have basic people demands, yes. But there is going to be some disagreement, if there are non-infinite funds, over where to distribute services. The industries they work in are often non-similar. The thing I usually tune into personally is the dynamic between labor/resource extraction and trade. Economics of consumption favor minimal labor basis in the production and somebody else paying for the infrastructure for basis of transportation. There are sharp divides, not necessarily about the ethics of oil consumption, but over laying pipelines vs rail transport, which impacts the cost of shipping, which in a global market impacts the viability of industries. Where to build bridges, how much to invest in lock and dam, conservation programs. Roundup concentrated exposure vs skin cancer rates, and the like, for sort of secondary issues.
     
    Samson likes this.
  17. Lohrenswald

    Lohrenswald 老仁森林

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    5,779
    Location:
    The end
    they are, though
     
  18. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    16,576
    Not sure about the best, but TracFone is annoying to use, cheaper than most to purchase, and generally seems to function on multiple networks. I'd take somebody else's advice of double check me though, not my bailiwick.

    There are regional cities, likewise people in the countryside often work in town. But Moline(John Deere) is not Decatur(ADM) is not Rockford(Chrysler/Walmart) is not Chicago(CBOT/finance,etc) is not LA. I sort of wanted to do that list working up in size in Minnesota instead of IL, as it would apply again and be different but still be along the Mississippi, but I'd have had to look up more stuff. And then to differentiate it from the Dakotas, which enter the realm of the West proper once they're outside of the the reach of the river.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  19. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The trees are actually quite lovely.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    16,576
    The population density over there seems generally a lot higher. People seem to start getting genuinely cranky when the commute crosses 90 minutes each way. Unless it's heavy Chicago/suburban traffic, that's probably 60-70 miles depending?

    I presently have a nice easy commute at about 12 miles. The wife is still not terrible at just under 20. I did just under 80 for a good while when I was younger, and that sucked.

    About how long would at 25 mile commute into London roundabouts take? Would it likely be rail or road? There are a fair bit of train lines that run into Chicago through its suburbs, but if you aren't along one of the routes, it's really just roads.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  20. rah

    rah Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,110
    Location:
    Chicago
    I leave my house in the burbs at 6 and get to my desk in the city at 7:30. Granted I'm a tad anal and have to be early to the train, but still 90 minutes each way SUCKS.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page