deadbeef79000

This is the thin end of the wedge. Whichever racist PoS manager at TWO whom sent this is simply emboldened by our current racist PoS government. It gets worse from here.

Objectively, even to the stupidst person, that a distressed patient and stressed nurse will be most effective when using a shared native language in interactions with the patient.

Communication with the rest of the staff obviously should be in the common language.

It's extra stupid because while we can assume a nurse has competency in English there's no guarantee the patient or patient's support does.

Yes. That's the point.

I don’t agree with throwing money away on a service I am not receiving.

Ah, yes. That argument. She's fine with other people paying for her superannuation though.

Alternative headline: Pensioner Benefits Whole Life from Unsustainably Low Rates

A special fuck you to these kinds of people.

Remember when we were told that privatisation of power generation would lower prices?

This is a somewhat challenging read but important enough a topic to read with an open mind.

IMHO The author should have explained what traditionally happened to child abusers: probably ostracized from the hāpu or just outright killed (utu).

I take issue with the article's assertion that it's a "sneaky payrise" as if it's somehow dishonest.

I've done this before after accumulating several years worth of leave due to a previous employer having strange ideas about project management and the mythical man-month.

I suppose I was kind of pressured into it, but I also liked having a pseudo-bonus that year.

Oh, is that the sound of a free market correction?

Is NZ oversupplied for retail? No, it's the consumers who are wrong.

What in the actual fuck.

How cartoonishly evil does our government have to get?

This, along with Luxon's "I don't care..." about bootcamps from this morning, is just plain evil.

Perhaps, just roll with me here, we don't need another $10b of roads and could be happy with $9.9b of roads, so we could instead feed our most desperately poor and struggling citizens?

This is Captain Planet level evil.

This is a bit of a personal rant, so please read it with that bias in mind.

There's a weird culture of management arrogance at TVNZ. It's persisted over the last two and a bit decades of personal experience with the company, despite restructures and staff turnover.

It seems to manifest in two ways:

• distrust of staff, as in management not trusting their reports at the bottom of the hierarchy
• cognitive dissonance between what is and what should be

Consultation with staff for restructuring has never been genuine: the plans are always already made and the "consulting" is actually just "telling".

Planning for the future has always been an ivory tower exercise by management, apparently because management have the "overview" but then don't place any value on the worker's knowledge of the actual work. Staff know there's plenty of penny-wise pound-foolish bullshit work done "but it's the TVNZ way so keep doing it".

In this case there's one of two root causes:

• ineptitude: no one thought that they'd better check employment contracts for relevant clauses they'd negotiated
• malevolence: they did but chose to ignore them

TL;DR:

• Alcohol $7.8b
• All illicits: $1.8b
• Meth: $0.365b

I wanted a figure for cannabis and found this from 2020:

PDF https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/the-nz-illicit-drug-harm-index-2020-10-feb.pdf

• All illicits: $1.9b
• Meth: $0.824b
• Cannabis: $0.911

I notice that the per kilograms measure for harm is also useful to account for volume of usage, but think that per 'dose' would be better.

• Meth: $1.1m per kg with 743kg consumption
• Cannabis: $0.35m per kg with 58000kg consumption

These figures include 'associative crime' as harm. So it apparent counts the cost of buying it as harm, it also counts the tax loss of that expenditure, so IMHO it skews unfavourabley to higher expenditure. But put that aside.

These figures show that all illicit drugs combined are less harmful to society than alcohol, and tautologically the harm is inflated by illegality.

This is exactly why I made sure when buying my house/section that it was more than 5m higher than sea level and inland from the coast. Not that that will mitigate the societal collapse following the glaciers'.

The world might be able to geoengineer saving one maybe two glaciers. But not all of them, not Greenland's icesheet and not the entire Antarctic icesheet.

So, our government's "crack down on beneficiaries" also includes disabled children.

Apparently disabled people are, what? Leaches sucking the life out of the economy or something?

How long until disabled people have to "work" for their support? Or perhaps we should just put them on a train and take them to a "work camp"?