aussieindian

Another instructive story comes from down under

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson

She was paraded as a brave and celebrated App developer who overcame serious health issues by the Australian press.

and then it came crashing down.

all this is caused by one weakness exhibited by many men.

1. Attempting to fix the problems of the women in their circle and the resulting echo chamber effect.

These men feel guilty when they hear/see women getting into a victim complex or when they are uncomfortable with market forces.

I keep asking my wife & women I know to demand higher salaries and they are content to take the easy non-confrontational path.

Focus on your happiness mate and rest will fall together.

Suddenly you will become desirable once you do that and get rid of bad habits like needy behavior.

I would suggest focus on health as well and do some lifting and read the book "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover and look for references on the web.

I think you have it the wrong way around..

Anyway, the only way a tester can prove their point is by running the tests at their own expense and they need a fair number of them.. but Randi restricts them to just a few and set the rules on who, how its done and who witnesses it..

Which means even on successful tests, he and his skeptic friends will assume that they were tricked and then use fraud to mess with the results.. They are judge and jury, no witnesses. Randi is self-confessed fraudster and has been caught red handed as well.

This was an extract from a Randi Volunteer who saw the light :)

I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I’ve always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions. It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule – partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses). I am in the process of moving on from the idea of trying to persuade anyone to care to that of trying to get the JREF and Randi to be more upfront about this instead, in order to thwart criticism. I fully realize that this will be a futile effort as well. I also continue to tell people to quit smoking. (…)

> I'm uncomfortable with the meme of corruption in public welfare programs

Its a story about a developing country.. it would be a brave editor who approves a piece without the story sticking to the dominant narrative about the country.

Not sure if there are any Journo's who can comment on my insinuation but that is how i see many media pieces. not sure if it is forced by editor or comes from a journo's own biases.

> But nobody that I know of has complained that Randi was not willing to set up a fair test.

I remember reading about how people who claimed that Randi would not test them.

ref : 1. http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-mill... 2. https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-ch...

I guess its his test, his rules.. pity rational people mischarecterise it as Scientific.

In the words of Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics:

If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”

This is something that has bugged me too..

Company A has 4 founders, each with 25% share and are doing well and valued at say 4m

Scenario 1 An investor wants to enter the game and buys out one founder for 1m No change in company's value of 4m and they go on to the sunset

Scenario 2 An investor wants to enter the game and joins the other 4 founders with 1m cash New equity split is now 20% each and company has 1m cash in the bank, valuing them at 5m with each having a 20% stake

Any exit from this position should allow the assets to be paid out equally to the 5 shareholders

if it is ok for one stakeholder to negotiate to be paid out first a preagreed sum, then it should also be okay for other stakeholders to negitiate to take money off the table during funding.

I don't understand this return money to investors bit. Shouldn't it be share the money equally among all stakeholders.