Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Results not typical.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                 

Fake Failure Agency

Pretend to be a loser for your kids
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

I read it’s terrible being the child of a successful, famous person: that lethal admixture of copious money sloshing around, and low self esteem from living in the shadow of a one-off genius. Nowhere to go but down, deflating like a waterbed full of needle holes .

Anyway, My secret private agency would take the rich and famous and totally repackage them as poor non-entities, in mediocre housing estates, sort of like like in witness protection.. Like superhero alter-egos Dad/ mum would set off every day dressed as a health care assistants on zero hours, trudging to the bus stop before being whisked off in a limo to recording studio, football stadium etc, there to remove and/or tack on his/ her prosthetic face, or what have you. The children meanwhile grow up with a better start in life at state school, only averagely unhappy, no money for drugs, no paparazzi in the garden, and later satisfied with a banal career.

foreseeable Problems: the celebrity would have to rent a second family for ‘at home with the Kardashian’ malarkey.

But maybe this agency already exists? - I suppose we wouldn’t know

DDRopDeadly, Nov 08 2017

http://money.cnn.co...-numbers/index.html 0.0005% tax = ultra greedy Apple [xenzag, Nov 09 2017]

[link]






       People like Bono already do this. ie pretend to be humble Joes (or Micks in his case) while they squirrel away multi millions in tax havens. There are other more extreme versions. Trump, for example, pretends to be a human being, whilst actually being a pile of cleverly animated cow shite.
xenzag, Nov 08 2017
  

       // actually being a pile of cleverly animated cow shite. //   

       No, he's definitely not a Democrat.
8th of 7, Nov 08 2017
  

       It could be dog shite, after all. Cows are quite benign and Trump is anything but benign.
xenzag, Nov 08 2017
  

       // It could be dog shite, //   

       Now if you'd said cat shit, we'd have known straight away you meant Tony Blair ...
8th of 7, Nov 08 2017
  

       //they squirrel away multi millions in tax havens//   

       I just had as vision of a squirrel being audited. It looks tense, but that's just because it’s a squirrel.
pertinax, Nov 08 2017
  

       Is it possible you're going nuts ?
normzone, Nov 08 2017
  

       Oh, and [DDRopDeadly], I didn't see you come in; welcome to the half-bakery.
pertinax, Nov 08 2017
  

       That squirrel hasn’t been ratified.
Ian Tindale, Nov 09 2017
  

       Two years ago, because of being registered to a font door of a property in Ireland as a tax dodge, Apple paid 0.003% tax on nearly a trillion dollars profit. If that's not greed, what is?
xenzag, Nov 09 2017
  

       Bold Times.
Ian Tindale, Nov 09 2017
  

       // If that's not greed, what is? //   

       Well, not that.   

       Apple exists to make money for its shareholders. It does not exist to be a cash cow for the jabbering chimps who are elected to public office.   

       Governments steal money from their citizens and enterprises and inevitably squander it, delivering an atrocious quality of service at an exorbitant price.   

       No-one should pay anything to any government if they can possibly avoid it. All you're doing is keeping greedy, venal, corrupt, amoral politicans in foie gras and champagne.
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       You may want to live in a greedy, cruel, selfish, dog eat dog world, but I don't. I believe in fairness and sharing and equality. I know they're old values that have little place in the world of the likes of Trump and Apple, but acquiring more and more wealth is bound to generate more and more inequality and unhappiness, and there's enough of that already.
xenzag, Nov 09 2017
  

       // I don't. //   

       In all probability, no-one does. But the universe wasn't ever like that, isn't like that, and never ever will be like that.   

       The universe is a deterministic (if chaotic, in the mathematical sense) system operating according to an immutable set of physical laws. It is cold, soulless, relentless, and utterly implacable.   

       If you want the universe to be different - even your tiny corner of it - then you need to see it as it really is*. Wake up and smell the napalm.   

       // I believe in fairness and sharing and equality. //   

       ... and the Tooth Fairy, and ley lines, and dowsing, and reiki ?   

       Belief is of no value. If you want things to work in the real world, then your ideas must be evidence-based, reproducible, and consistent. Facts ... what are the facts ? Freedom is irrelevant, self determination is irrelevant. You will be Assimilated. You must comply. Resistance is Futile.   

       *Of course, this will most likely cause you to go completely insane (if you weren't already)
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       The water (patient teacher) wears away the stone. (slow learner)
xenzag, Nov 09 2017
  

       "Experience is the harshest teacher, because it gives the test first and the lesson afterwards...."
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       //dowsing// My father was in the Royal Engineers and was part of Montgomery's famed 8th Army Desert Rats who destroyed Rommel's Afrika Corps in the Western Desert in world war 2. Part of the unit's job my dad was in was finding water, then drilling wells to extract it. The method used by the engineers was to find the water was dowsing rods. Not everyone could use them, but my dad could, and he said they never failed. Rem this is the British Army at war, so they couldn't and didn't fuck around. Your 'real' predictable, boring world does not exist, but the much more exciting quantum world does.
xenzag, Nov 09 2017
  

       // Your 'real' predictable, boring world does not exist, but the much more exciting quantum world does. //   

       Neither exist. There is no deep reality. Reality is created by observation ...   

       P.S. Thomas Hobbes ...
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       //The method used by the engineers was to find the water was dowsing rods.//   

       No, the method used by the engineers to find the water was drilling. If you drill deep enough, you will find water. However, saying "we just keep drilling until we find water" is not a reliable way to maintain employment.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 09 2017
  

       //Rommel's 8th army//   

       Are you sure about that part?
pertinax, Nov 09 2017
  

       Shucks ... we had kept quiet about that ... we were saving it for later to use in a vicious, premeditated and hurtful ad hominem attack on [xen] ...   

       And now you've spoilt it. Thanks.
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       //Belief is of no value//   

       But, on the other hand, value only exists because of belief. For example, food has a market value because of the widespread belief that life is still worth living. However, though widespread, that belief is still only a belief. Some people come to adopt a different belief, and are then no longer in the market for food. For example.
pertinax, Nov 09 2017
  

       Incorrect.   

       By definition, 'Belief' is holding an opinion in the absence of objective evidence.   

       "Life is worth living" is capable of rational deconstruction, by weighing positive versus negative stimuli. When negative stimuli significantly outweigh positive, then it may be rational to assert that life is not worth living. The assertion is amenable to rational debate.   

       However, "I believe in ghosts" can be neither proved or disproved in the current state of knowledge. There is ample anecdotal evidence for ghosts, and a belief in them is not irrational, simply not justifiable by hard evidence.
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       On the other hand, the fact that everyone who believes in ghosts is what psychologists classify as "pretty whacko" does tend to imply (by quondam ipso ergo nergum ipso) that ghosts are not, in fact, a thing.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 09 2017
  

       Then I think we might be working to different definitions.   

       Nevertheless, even with your definition, you still need some definition of "positive" and "negative" stimuli. Of course, "positive" and "negative" sound objective, because they are the same words that we use to define regions of the number line and electric charges. However, when you try to use them to define other things, I think you'll find they're just "good" and "evil", hastily dressed up in ill-fitting lab coats.
pertinax, Nov 09 2017
  

       Lab coats ? No, surely not ... some sort of smart uniform, with shiny jackboots, and silver insignia ...   

         

       In the same way that it is impossible to have a phobia of venomous snakes (because it is an entirely rational fear), it is not necessary to believe in, for example, hairbrushes; hairbrushes exist, and can be demonstrated to exist, whether they are believed in or not. They are a thing.   

       Once the existence of a hairbrush has been demonstrated by direct observation, disbelief in their existence is irrational.   

       Given that there are people who sincerely believe that two polar bears travelled from the Arctic to the Middle East to climb meekly on board a huge wooden boat packed with prey species, ghosts seem rational by comparison.   

       The appropriate stance would appear to be open-minded scepticism, on the basis that ghosts may indeed exist, but hard evidence has yet to be produced.   

       The fact that ghosts have no explanation within current physical models is irrelevant, as these are hypotheses subject to challenge. The better they stand up to challenges, the more valid they appear.   

       But simply because a theory successfully explains the known facts does not mean it is entirely correct,something that Einstein was at pains to point out.A good model allowing verifiable predictions to be made is just that- a model.
8th of 7, Nov 09 2017
  

       //The fact that ghosts have no explanation within current physical models is irrelevant//   

       No it isn't.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 09 2017
  

       Supposing that all of the above is true, still none of it brings you from fact to value. Hint: nothing does; this is a well-explored territory in analytical philosophy. Carry on. We'll watch.
pertinax, Nov 09 2017
  

       “No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.”
Ian Tindale, Nov 09 2017
  

       //Once the existence of a hairbrush has been demonstrated by direct observation, disbelief in their existence is irrational.//You can directly observe Uri Geller making spoons bend by themselves. I'm sure he could make similar phenomena be subject to direct observation including that of hairbrushes.
xenzag, Nov 09 2017
  

       A hairbrush is an observable phenomenon independent of any human agency. You can even make your own hairbrush, and compare it with other items of type "hairbrush".   

       But Mr Geller is not a hairbrush*. You cannot make your own Mr Geller. If spoon-bending by mind power were a thing, others would be able to do it too. You might be able to do it. Most people can break matchsticks with their fingers. It is a reproducible and consistent phenomenon.   

       *allegedly.
8th of 7, Nov 10 2017
  

       You define everything by nature of it "being observable". I don't. The very act of observation changes that which is being observed. Living things you look at (for example), probably die shortly afterwards. You might consider this to be a compliment.
xenzag, Nov 10 2017
  

       Oh, we do, we do.   

       If something cannot be observed (interacted with) then it does not exist.   

       Some fundamental particles are weakly interacting. Dark matter is postulated, and should be detectable by gravitational effects; it can only be observed indirectly.
8th of 7, Nov 10 2017
  

       //If something cannot be observed (interacted with) then it does not exist// Now you enter the philosophical world, and must offer up a continuous string of definitions, all of which are contested. According to your logic, gravity didn't exist before there was anyone to observe it. You might want to read the wiki entry on "reality" to see how many definitions of that word are described. "Yours" would seem to fall into what is referred to as "Scientific realism". You could take a look at David Kellogg Lewis and see where that goes...
xenzag, Nov 10 2017
  

       No, this is all heading toward incorrectness.   

       The big problem in physics and double PE these days is the whole quantum nonsense. The idea that a thing can hold an indeterminate state, and that it even holds all or both states at once.   

       My lottery ticket holds an indeterminate quantum state until tonight, when the state collapses and I tear it up and throw it away in disappointment, but until then I’m both a winner and not a winner.   

       In quantum mechanics, the state is both because we can’t observe the actual going on. The idea that a thing isn’t a reality unless we can observe it is astoundingly egotistic. We should be basing science on truth, not observation. Just because you can’t observe the truth on occasion is not my problem. Accessing the truth is a whole new problem which will take science to a new level (the value of your levels may go down as well as up).
Ian Tindale, Nov 10 2017
  

       Bishop Berkeley says hello.
pertinax, Nov 10 2017
  

       //We should be basing science on truth// Ha - who decides on what truth is? The Pope? That which is called truth today is called untrue tomorrow, so that term is relativistic along with everything else. As regards your lottery tickets, they exist as winners and losers in a multistate universe.
xenzag, Nov 10 2017
  

       // That which is called truth today is called untrue tomorrow, so that term is relativistic along with everything else. //   

       For a given value of "true", yes.   

       Newton's laws are still valid on a macroscopic scale, even though they have been augmented by quantum mechanics. So they're still true - as far as they go.   

       Some theories have been discredited, or rather, replaced with ones that better fit the data. Plate tectonics works well for describing earthquakes and volcanos. The phlogiston theory of heat has long since been superseded.   

       "Scientific realism" ? Yeah, we'll own to that ...
8th of 7, Nov 10 2017
  

       I don’t think people correctly understand what is meant by “the truth”. It isn’t up to a person or set of people to say what the truth is — that’s simply a bunch of people saying stuff. It isn’t even up to people perceiving the truth. It isn’t even dependent on people. Or animals. Or any life at all. Or the state of information and chemistry and biology and so on, on any particular planet that may happen to exist.   

       The truth is an independent canonical situation, whether it can be perceived, interpreted, relayed and recognised is immaterial. The truth of a thing or an event or a situation is that which actually is so, not what people think is so. Is the cat dead or alive in the box? Well, it is definitely one or the other, and the one option which it is, is the truth. You just don’t know which, but that doesn’t affect the truth.
Ian Tindale, Nov 10 2017
  

       Truth or lies are a human condition.
xenzag, Nov 10 2017
  

       Lies are a human construct.   

       "True" and "False" are different. They represent logic states. "False" in this context is not pejorative; it is simply the opposite of "True".   

       It's unfortunate that "False" has negative connotations in day to day language.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2017
  

       All values are human constructs. That's why they are described using language. There simply are no total absolutes. Look closer at anything and a fuzzy edge emerges. A binary world is easier to comprehend so that's why we use words like truth and false. I'm off to play the lottery. I win it every week.
xenzag, Nov 11 2017
  

       Oh dear. Should I explain?
pertinax, Nov 11 2017
  

       I would like to be the first human to utter the phrase "What we need here is a philosopher."
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 12 2017
  

       You are channelng the spirit of Douglas Adams, and we claim our five pounds.
8th of 7, Nov 12 2017
  

       See how easy this was? All that had to be done was delve into philosophy and everyone sounds like total wasters. Simply get the famous person to start pontificating on the meaning of truth, and no child will ever believe they're actually successful or famous.
RayfordSteele, Nov 14 2017
  

       I just read this and felt I missed the party. :(   

       Anyways, all I have to offer is that there is not just True or False. Sometimes there is None, and that is something that can take you down a path nothing else is able to.
mylodon, Nov 15 2017
  

       But back to the original idea, the simple truth is, you get frisky with a country maiden on your way to Lebanon. She deals with the aftermath, and you continue back to Paris.
mylodon, Nov 15 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle