Originally posted by eamonhonda
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
-
Any thoughts on the merits of premium economy seats over regular economy? Am flying home from Australia shortly and Cathay Pacific allow you to 'bid' for seat upgrades. Half thinking that a nicer seat on the long Hong Kong to Dublin leg would make the experience better. But it looks like it would cost €350 for the privilege. Just wondering if anyone had a clue if sounds like it would be worth it!
Comment
-
100% definitely worth it for that length of journey. More room to stretch out and a better chance of a sleep. Food a bit better but nothing to get worked up about, service better due to smaller numbers in that area. Subjective for value ofc, anything less than 400 i would snap up. Anything more than that be straying into paying business class to start with.Low fee Euro/UK money transfer, 1st transfer free through my referral
https://transferwise.com/u/bfa0e
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wombatman View PostGreat fight last night. Could have gone either way. I had GGG down as edging it.People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
Comment
-
Originally posted by CourierCollie View PostHad to google it. Was mostly surprised that Nick Cage wasn't dead already. That, and he's only 54; really thought he was about 70."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by DeadParrot View PostI haven't seen or heard from anyone bar two judges who had canelo winning
It appears ubiquitous across the sport that the wrong man won, if you were to buy into the conspiracy stuff, Canelo is a far more marketable champ than GGG.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View Post@laz an interesting article on the marathon guy's equipment today and a Christmas present idea to drop hints about with the wife.
I'd love a pair. According to that article their effectiveness wears off after about 100 miles. That can't be right. I wouldn't even get 3 weeks out of them.I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lazare View PostCheers Hitch. He wore them when he attempted to break 2 hours at Monza last year and there was a bit of debate around them.
I'd love a pair. According to that article their effectiveness wears off after about 100 miles. That can't be right. I wouldn't even get 3 weeks out of them.
This running lark has really started a civil war with my body. One step forward and two limps backward . Used to be so much easier. mudder time is a bitch
Comment
-
Congrats man.
Dad dick come in yet?People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lazare View PostI'd love a pair. According to that article their effectiveness wears off after about 100 miles. That can't be right. I wouldn't even get 3 weeks out of them.
The source for that is "Some runners have said...". Which is anecdotal at best and hugely subject to bias. The data is based on 500,000 race times. I'd imagine most of the pairs, other than those just bought for the race, would have had more than 100miles on them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Aul Switcharoo View PostCongrats Brendan. Jesus though, whenever you post it reminds me that showboat/mullanes days were like 10 years agoMay you live in interesting times!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arazi View PostI must say that given that we are a community I’ve always felt uneasy at how the Staking threads operate. Statements can be made that are clearly bullshit and yet any time anyone dared querying them in a thread they’ve been shot down by regulars.
They've always seemed to be on a willing buyer\willing seller basis with clear t&cs.
(I'm a disinterested observer as I very rarely stake.)"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Postso you would prefer that all people who qualify for social and affordable housing people are grouped together in high density low developments out of sight of the others.
It's shocking how prelevant that kind of thinking is amongst supposed progressives.Is that how you crash a wedding? yes it is, Bionic Barry, yes it is.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sickpuppy View PostCould you be more specific. Of course people spoofing don't want to be called out on big mark up etc.
Then a statement is made to the effect of “this is a great value tournament, blah blah blah”.
Well exactly who is it value for?
The investor or the player or both? In the case of a 1.2 Mark Up the investors are paying a whopping 50% premium on what the player is paying. There’s no doubt in those cases that the players should be getting value if competent, I very much doubt on most occasions if the investors are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arazi View PostWell it seems quite common that the Mark Up is something like 1.2 for the investor, but I’ve seen higher.
Then a statement is made to the effect of “this is a great value tournament, blah blah blah”.
Well exactly who is it value for?
The investor or the player or both? In the case of a 1.2 Mark Up the investors are paying a whopping 50% premium on what the player is paying. There’s no doubt in those cases that the players should be getting value if competent, I very much doubt on most occasions if the investors are.
It's all pretty subjective and can't be proven either way.
I've always been more suspicious of the selective sharkscope graphs. When someone filters their results to 6Max Hi-Lo tournaments on one site only, with a buy-in of exactly $128 in order to get a nice upward pointing graph then it screams dodgy to me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dice75 View PostMarkup discussion been done to death here many times already. Buy or dont imo, Isn't a salesman alive gonna undersell himself in any walk of life.
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Arazi View PostWhere have they been done? In the threads themselves, I don’t think so, I’ve seen one or two questions asked and then those posters have been blasted out of it. That in essence is the very point that I initially set out to make.
If a player is charging 1.2 you can look at past live results or use online performances as a proxy to determine if the investment is profitable.
Player A has a 30% ROI at $100+ tournaments online and is charging a 1.2 MU, that seems value when translated to a 1k live event, then buy some. There's no issue here as it's completely transparent.
Comment
-
Well one solution would be to allow/not frown upon those who query the Mark Up or ask questions in the thread.
I tried to make my example quite generic but I regularly see something in a staking thread that I’d like to question in the interest of the community but I know that to do so would bring on the rebuffs of the regulars.
Perhaps it could be added to the charter, “Do you agree to answer queries on your sale in the thread?”.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dice75 View PostMarkup discussion been done to death here many times already. Buy or dont imo, Isn't a salesman alive gonna undersell himself in any walk of life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strewelpeter View Postso you would prefer that all people who qualify for social and affordable housing people are grouped together in high density low developments out of sight of the others.
It's shocking how prelevant that kind of thinking is amongst supposed progressives.
The idea that large social-housing developments are doomed to dystopia is rarely challenged. But it is wrong, write three housing experts.
SPOILERMick Byrne, Michelle Norris, Anna Carnegie
Dr Michael Byrne and Professor Michelle Norris lecture at the School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice at University College Dublin. Anna Carnegie is a PhD researcher in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of York.
One of the core ideas of the government’s social-housing strategy, as set out in the government’s housing plan, Rebuilding Ireland, is that we must “avoid repeating the mistakes of the past”.
We must not build large social-housing estates as in earlier decades, but should focus instead on “a mix of smaller scale and infill developments”, it says.
At the heart of this approach is a gospel that any concentration of social housing should be avoided. Instead, these new developments should also feature owner-occupied housing.
This approach is often called “tenure mixing”, and has become a go-to panacea for the alleged ills of social housing, not just in Ireland but across many advanced economies.
Indeed, the idea that large social neighbourhoods are doomed to dystopia – characterised by unemployment, crime and drugs – is so widespread and so widely supported that it is rarely challenged in media, political, or policy debates.
There are, however, two major problems with it. First of all, it’s wrong. And second of all, it is a dangerous narrative for a city like Dublin, which desperately needs ambitious, large-scale social-housing construction.
Blame Deindustrialisation, Not Social Housing
The idea that the social-housing neighbourhoods of the past were
failures is in large part based on the fact that a number of such neighbourhoods in Dublin, and in other cities, experienced chronic social problems, in particular from the mid-to-late 1980s and into the early 1990s.
They were saddled with high unemployment, poverty, and mental-health issues. But they were marked, above all, by the heroin epidemic that swept through many communities during the period. Nobody can argue with this.
However, to suggest that social housing caused these issues is to confuse correlation with causation. In reality, poverty, deteriorating mental health, and vulnerability to heroin were much more closely related to deindustrialisation than they were to social housing.
Nearly every city in the industrialised world experienced these issues during the great wave of deindustrialisation, and consequent unemployment, of the 1970s and 1980s.
Here in this city, sociology lecturer Michael Punch at University College Dublin has documented the relationship between deindustrialisation in the 1970s and 1980s, and the social problems experienced in inner-city neighbourhoods.
In short, communities affected by these massive economic changes would have experienced serious social problems irrespective of what form of housing they were living in.
Social Housing Can Be Mixed-Income
The idea of “mixed tenure” is also based on another problematic assumption: that only poor and socially excluded people live in social housing.
This risks ignoring the many social-housing residents who are in full-time employment. But, more importantly, it fails to ask the crucial question: why is it that social housing tends to have higher concentrations of poor households?
The answer here is our allocations policy. Countries like Ireland allocate social housing on the basis of “housing need”. Given the small proportion of social housing in the first place – under 10 percent of Irish households live in social housing – this means the most needy are concentrated in social housing.
Moreover, Ireland has for many decades sold off social housing to better-off tenants, giving them a leg up into home ownership, while narrowing the spread of those in social housing further, leaving the poorest households.
In other countries, for example Denmark, allocations policy is not based on need, but on a combination of time on waiting lists and the necessity to build sustainable communities. Likewise in Austria, where households of almost any income level can, and do, live in social housing.
In other words, if you have a higher proportion of social housing and a more sustainable allocations policy, it is perfectly possible to create mixed-income neighbourhoods of social housing.
The converse is also true: mixed-tenure neighbourhoods do not necessarily mean mixed-income neighbourhoods.
In places like Ballymun, where tenure mixing was part of the regeneration strategy, most of the private housing was snapped up by landlords who rent out to tenants in receipt of rent supplement or the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).
The income profile has remained the same despite the reduction in the proportion of social housing in the neighbourhood. This is linked to another rather obvious fact that is rarely mentioned: it is the housing market, not social housing, that leads to clusters of poor and rich households in separate neighbourhoods.
Those cities with more marketised housing systems, such as in the English-speaking world, tend to have much higher levels of class segregation than their counterparts in continental Europe, which tend to have high levels of social housing.
Cementing Stigma
Some of the contradictions and problems with tenure mixing are particularly evident when we consider that it is one of the main policy responses to the stigmatisation of social-housing residents and neighbourhoods.
The irony is that tenure mixing appears to be predicated on the idea that when lots of social-housing households live together, their bad behaviour gets worse, and that conversely when they come into contact with middle-class home owners they will, by osmosis, take on the latter’s alleged virtues.
This assumption is itself stigmatising. It fails to recognise that stigmatisation is not caused by social-housing residents, but by the attitudes of those who don’t live in social housing. There is also evidence that social-housing residents who live in mixed-tenure developments experience increased internal stigma from their new homeowning neighbours.
More worryingly, there is research that suggests, in some cities at least, that tenure mixing is not so much about dealing with issues such as unemployment, drugs, or stigma, but more about dispersing those who are affected by these problems, and therefore making them less visible.
Such a strategy goes hand in hand with gentrification: if the “solution” to the problems faced by social housing is to reduce the amount of it and expand the number of higher-income owner-occupiers in a neighbourhood, it is simply state-sponsored gentrification.
This is particularly important in the context of the planned redevelopment of several large social housing estates in Dublin, including O’Devaney Gardens in Dublin 7, which under current plans would see greatly increased proportions of private housing.
How Large Is Large?
But perhaps one of the most frustrating features of this debate is the extremely loose references to large social-housing estates in the Rebuilding Ireland strategy and more generally.
When international researchers look at the issues that can arise with high concentrations of poverty, it is often referring to neighbourhoods often of many thousands of residents.
But in Dublin, politicians and policymakers often seem to consider developments as small as a couple of hundred units to be a large concentration.
A housing policy that cannot fathom 200 social-housing units side by side without social catastrophe, in the context of an acute housing shortage, is in serious trouble.
And this brings us to the final danger of enshrining tenure mixing as a vision for housing development, and social housing in particular. We have an acute housing shortage. The market alone will not be able to provide adequate supply of affordable housing.
We need decisive and ambitious state intervention. We need to think big. We need to think long term. We need new large neighbourhoods to sustain Dublin’s rapid growth. Social housing, on a large scale, needs to be part of this.
Our ability to imagine, envision, and create such neighbourhoods is currently being hampered by ill-informed assumptions about social housing.
Instead of assuming social housing neighbourhoods can’t work, let’s tear up the script and start a discussion about how we would like such neighbourhoods to work and what needs to happen to make that vision possible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arazi View PostWhere have they been done? In the threads themselves, I don’t think so, I’ve seen one or two questions asked and then those posters have been blasted out of it. That in essence is the very point that I initially set out to make.
tha'ts the 1st one i find when i search, there are a few others too
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arazi View PostSo what’s the solution then, keep our mouths shut? That seems to be the general consensus from the regulars yeah?
I guess if you see a thread with a sale you have 4 options...
Buy
Offer to buy at lower mark-up
Complain at mark up
Ignore it
Don't really see the point of option 3 as people can make their own mind up surely?
Comment
-
Originally posted by bp_me View PostShould I know what that means?
it seems even stupider now
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
Comment
-
American Animals was good.
Looking up The Rider above and see
"The Rider's hard-hitting drama is only made more effective through writer-director Chloé Zhao's use of untrained actors to tell the movie's fact-based tale."
Bad acting makes a story more effective? Good reviews so was it eh...good acting?
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Arazi View PostSo what’s the solution then, keep our mouths shut? That seems to be the general consensus from the regulars yeah?
Players are taking advantage of investors by charging large mark ups? If players charge mark ups that investors aren't willing to invest at, then players won't sell or they'll lower their mark ups, it seems pretty easy to me.
Investors are often aware that no value exists but they invest anyway, it's pretty much how the whole gaming industry works.
Comment
Comment