Posts by James Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm putting this in a separate post, in case Russell or Graeme think it's better moderated.
One of the things that I dislike about the current regime is that there might be some questions that might be worthy of public discussion, that are less able to be discussed (or I feel are less able to be discussed) because of these rules. For example: Are the rates of alcoholism and mental health issues that I anecdotally perceive in criminal defence lawyers acceptable, and what can we do about this? It's not the best example, but it's the one that springs to mind.
-
Legal Beagle: Suicide Reporting; or, The…, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
In recent months, I’ve seen the Herald do something very interesting. When there’s a story involving a suicide they can’t mention, the article proceeds as per usual (“no suspicious circumstances”, etc), but at the end there’s a list called “Where to get help” with the contact numbers of various agencies such as Lifeline and the Suicide Crisis Helpline.
Assuming law change is not forthcoming, I appreciate this sleight of hand in contrast to the "[there were no suspicious circumstances] this death has been referred to the coroner", which always leaves a small margin of doubt in my mind that perhaps I'm not accurately reading between the lines.
-
Legal Beagle: Suicide Reporting; or, The…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
And yes it may be questionable whether the creative minds at the advertising agencies can do anything other than make themselves more money, but I'd like to at least try.
Given the abject failures to use anything remotely evidence based with smoking, speeding, drink driving, drug and alcohol harm, I'd like to see some actual science involved in the process. I don't hold out a lot of hope, though there are possible a couple of recent drink driving ads that might have some hope of working.
What is clear is that the aim of the law, as confusing as its implementation may be, is to reduce suicides. In particular, the anecdotal copycat suicides. Yet the rate of suicides in NZ has not decreased as a result of this law.
I don't see how we can know that the law hasn't prevented a larger increase in the suicide rate. However, I'm really all for some action. Unfortunately (or not), I didn't copy my internet arguments folder over to my new work computer, where I would find most of my references.
-
Legal Beagle: Suicide Reporting; or, The…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
We report road deaths in great detail and that combined with the application of tremendous creative talents in the advertising industry has actually reduced our road toll.
It's very likely that the road toll has decreased for entirely different reasons. The evidence for the advertising having much to do with it is near nil.
I've also looked over some of the research on suicide, and it is deeply, deeply difficult to interpret. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I spend a lot of time reading statistics, and I'd be really really hard pressed to be confident of making any conclusions.
-
Not that it is really any consolation, but for a couple of years (perhaps it still is), there was a seam between the parking seal and the roadway seal in the "perfect" spot in the middle of the bike lane where ideally you'd run your tyre (SH1 North - Dunedin). And every time you'd hit it, instead of riding over it, it'd track you along its line. Luckily for me, is/was not on the bit I use/d routinely.
-
I haven't fully thought this through as an idea, but one way of modifying this would be to include a Kiwisaver surcharge on home lending (*in addition to, not replacing the existing proposal). That is, if you can afford to borrow more for a home, then you can also afford to save more into Kiwisaver. This would take some heat directly out of housing, with a proportionately greater effect on those who can afford to borrow more.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to steve black,
Note: I’m having another read through my reference library with regards to the multiply by 1.414
Hi Steve, I've been really enjoying your contribution. This is the reference I use in relation to 1.41(4) in relation to comparing between polls.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to steve black,
I’d just like to paraphrase Steve’s post.
For us to be able to confident that there is a real change in support between two polls, it would need to move by more than 4.3%*
The correct narrative is “Our poll was not adequately powered to detect any changes”.
To quote Andrew, “Yep. That’s a story they’ll want to run.”*Assumes that both polls have a sample of 1000, giving a margin of error of 3.1, multiplied by 1.41, as outlined by Steve above. At the five percent threshold, a movement of 1.9% is required, and 2.6% at ten percent support.
-
Feed: Saints Preserve, in reply to Lilith __,
Imma try with a big catfood tin. I’m guessing a sharpish inside edge is helpful. :-)
I'd try to just keep the top ring and replace the rest of the tin with a pouch (or pad out the inside of the tin, so that you don't bruise the fruit. Older rellie in the family had a beaut contraption with a canvas pouch under a bespoke ring with teeth.
-
Feed: Saints Preserve, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Feijoa trees usually need another tree nearby to pollinate them. They can produce fruit on their own but a second tree within insect range is required to get good yields.
I used to think this as well, but there are now some new [cultivars?/clones?] available that do have a good single yield. Or you can presumably get a double grafted job. Also, if you like feijoas, planting only one seems silly. It would be like planting only one lemon tree, when you could plant three (space permitting).