I used to change WASD keybindings to ESDF for a similar reason. And in most of my emulators, IJKL stand for triangle, square, x, and circle (or their other console equivalents) respectively.
The rest are more or less assigned depending on the console. Since I mostly play PS1 games, the rest of the bindings are follows:
L1: AL2: QR1: ;R2: PGHThose payday loans are technically in the clear, legally, via plausible deniability. Those who call and harass aren't supposed to be from the payday loan company, they're independent contractors. And since they target those who are strapped for cash, I doubt they've got any resources to file cases against the companies. The government? Maybe once in a blue moon when it's politically advantageous for them to make a show of possibly doing something about it. Otherwise, they've got other priorities.
The loansharks are like a cottage industry here, and they are kinda small businesses in themselves--just without the paperwork. No paper trail other than a simple notebook where the loans and repayments are recorded. Those who resort to them for loans often have no choice, and won't complain to the police about it even if it were indeed illegal. And the police? They've got other more ~~lucrative business~~ important things to take care of.
Yeah!! I actually find it quite nice, nevermind that the necessity that gave rise to it is communal poverty.
If the same kind of piecemeal purchases (minus the dizzying amounts of plastic) can be adopted for more products, here and everywhere, that'd be very nice. I can't imagine it'd be any more troublesome than keeping a huge vat of whatever, a weighing scale or some sort of a liquid measuring device and a person to make the measurements and handle the payment.
Well, I guess it can't handle a rush of customers, though, hence the 50mL sachets of food stuff (and 5mL of shampoo, dishwashing liquid, etc).
I imagine something like that yes. No offense.
No offense taken, don't worry.
I am not sure what the cheapest shampoo is around here, but as far as I can recall, the brand shampoo I usually buy is roughly 3€ (converted) per 250mL bottle. Somewhat surprising that we're paying 1st world country prices in a 3rd world country. I can probably go for a much cheaper one, but I am not sure I can find one that is much cheaper. Most of the really cheap stuff tend to be in bulk, and usually in those big warehouse-like stores that are meant for wholesale buying. This reinforces my point earlier: I can buy cheaper overall, but I have to pay a lot upfront. And when people try to live in under 10€ per day, I don't think it's feasible.
For fairly non-perishable stuff like shampoo, toiletries, detergent, and the like, I guess it really makes sense buying in bulk (or what one can use up in a reasonable amount of time). Food though? That's the first thing that went "single portion sizes" here. Heck, there was a time before "single-use" cooking oil sachets, where we can just buy that stuff to the mL. We just need to bring our own containers and the store will put the appropriate amount on it. Same goes for vinegar and soy sauce (which are basic kitchen staples here). Now? That stuff can be bought pre-packaged in amounts as little as 50mL.
This is painfully true here as well. Worse, it's not just credit cards. There are payday loans here that, while you can take out a loan without much hassle, you and your loved ones will be hounded by their agents if you even delay a single payment.
And then there's these loan sharks whose main shtick is to provide loans with 20% interest (so-called 5/6--you loan 5 bucks, you pay 6 bucks). It's kinda crazy to imagine that these loan sharks are the most humane one of the bunch, but with these loansharks, you can at least reason with them.
Yep! Asia is correct. South-east Asia, to be precise.
Buying things piecemeal. This is also doubles as an answer to "why it's financially unwise to be poor." We buy shampoo, conditioner, and sometimes even soap in single-use sachets. Of course, it is more economical to buy in larger quantities, because you can control your portion sizes and whatnot. But when that bottle of shampoo costs the equivalent of the day's meals (two, maybe three), then the reasoning becomes understandable. A lot of stuff are hence available here in "single-use" sachets or packets.
A lot of these things have overlap with "travel-size" stuff that are actually quite logical when you're traveling, but for a lot of us here, it's what we buy week in, week out.
EDIT:
Clarified, reworded, and added some stuff.
Well, I wanted a more "bracketed" approach (hence, the note about making it similar to how I think income taxes work), but I suppose a continuous function could also work better as a simple formula. I'd still keep the difference between "assets below" and "assets above" median difference though.
It's a matter of social convention. I grew up where there's a variety of foods that are typically thought of as "breakfast food". There are those that would fit in nicely with a typical American breakfast (some bread, coffee, and perhaps some egg; chocolate rice porridge; congee), those that would be proper meals (some rice, either fried or plain white, some protein or two, and an egg), and those that are kinda in-between (noodle dishes, some can be thick and hearty).
I think it's just something that can quickly be served up while I'm half-asleep and low on energy. A simple garlic fried rice with last night's left overs or some fried sausages and an egg or two would be more than enough to kickstart my day, but it can be too much of a hassle to prepare on some days. Hence, I can understand why some people would fall into a habit of eating a "dessert breakfast" — high on sugars and easy to prepare.
All assets will be taxed as follows:
0% for those whose total assets are between half and twice the median (calculated from the entire adult population, adult meaning those who are eligible to vote)
for those whose total assets are above twice the median, the formula would be as follows:
rate = 100% * 50% ^ floor(log₂(total assets / median assets))
Thus, for those who has 16 times the calculated median asset, they will be taxed 93.75% the value of their assets.
This is different from the tax bracket calculations, but it can be modified so that it will be calculated similarly (that is, the portion of the assets that exceed 16 times the median will be taxed 93.75%, those between 8 and 16 will be taxed 87.5%, between 4 and 8 will be taxed 75%, between 2 and 4 taxed 50%, and between the median and twice it are tax-free. It will be a more complicated calculation, and IDK if it is an improvement over the more simple formula.
those who have less than half the median, the formula will be as follows:
rebate = max(total assets * abs(ceiling(log₂(total assets / median assets))), k)
where k is a defined maximum rebate value
Thus, for those who has 1/16 the calculated median asset, they will have a rebate of 16 times the value of their assets, unless it's greater than the maximum rebate value. Those who have absolutely no assets to their name will have the maximum rebate value (since a 0 will break a more naive formula).
Assets can then be defined for this calculation such that it covers any means of earning money (stock, land, equipment, etc), but I am not a tax lawyer to bullet-proof this. The intent is that those who have less will receive such that they are lifted up, and those who have too much will be levied accordingly. The end result, hopefully, will be a society where most people have some assets, but no one will have way more than twice, or way less than half the median (an average value that is more or less resistant to extreme values).
Will it be practical? I sure hope so. Will it be realistic, hell no!
I remember coming across a study that has a fairly different conclusion. Of course, not having any caloric intake is a sure-fire way to lose weight, poverty limits people to cheap and calorie-rich (but not nutritionally rich) foods.
Not the article I remember reading, but here's a writeup by the WHO about poverty and obesity: https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/23-05-2024-the-inequality-epidemic--low-income-teens-face-higher-risks-of-obesity--inactivity-and-poor-diet
Dr Martin Weber, Team Lead for Quality of Care and Programme Manager of Child and Adolescent Health at WHO/Europe, said, “The affordability and accessibility of healthy food options are often limited for families with lower incomes, leading to a higher reliance on processed and sugary foods, which can have detrimental effects on adolescent health.”
In my part of the world, poverty food has for the past few decades been instant noodles, on rice. Carbs on carbs. In my worst days, I managed to get by with just crushed junk food (think, the cheapest doritos-like chips I can afford) on rice (one serving for 0.10 USD).
I wonder if answering "I don't know, I haven't checked" would count as: