And as a poor person, every cent counts. That’s why you claim the maximum (or a bit more than you think you’ll ve given), since it’s the government’s job to actually calculate how much you’re “better off” than the other person and adjust the rates accordingly. Ideally, you’d just request something and get that something - you shouldn’t have to be the one to decide how miserable your misery is compared to other miseries.

Someone on benefits, especially someone caring for their sick child shouldn’t be an accounting expert. This isn’t the US, where 15 year olds are expected to do their own taxes (and pay a $15.000 service that does about 10% of the work for you), and even in the US if you fuck up the IRS mostly just tells you to cover the difference.

So, this system of “you dared to ask for ONE CENT MORE? Now you owe me ALL back” is not only asinine, but it doesn’t even fly in the US of all places.

If we want to punish people, then ask for, say, 2% interest on the overclaim. Taking ALL is more discriminatiry, since it rewards trying to claim an ungodly amount and hoping one of your £15k claims somehow goes under the radar.

All in all, not a good system.

Using something proportional would be a progressivs disincentive, and it will keep actual “accidental” overclaimants better off than malicious ones.

GNU Incredible Magic Projector.

If it did circles, it’d destroy half the world.

Instrunctions unclear, geeted out.

Not even progressively larger fines, up to jail time and having your driving licence and car forefeited are proportionate - this still disproportionately affects those less well-off.

Perhaps civil asset and “rights” forefeiture for the rich could be a better solution. With rights I don’t mean human rights, but stuff like being allowed to ride in a car at all (since being rich enough you can hire a chauffeur, even losing your licence isn’t a big deal and you can always rent a car or buy a new one multiplr times over). How this would be implemented (enforced) I don’t know, but it should work. If course it should only be applied to people blatantly disregarding basic civility in traffic and those who don’'t need the car

Don’t forget a haircut! Or clipping finger nails! What about a shave?

These are all MINI-GENOCIDES.

You could also open a 2nd restaurant if the first does too well - just say you use it to make your great food accessible to more people and to test new products before risking your reputation. The part about “I want me some cash to mix in some of my dirty money” can be strategically left out.

All language and meaning is rooted in culture - including pictograms.

What would lead to the highest rate of adoption would be universality - both in use and in meaning, which, unfortunately isn’t there yet.

Some european countries use the “crossed out” version on all prohibition signs (circular, black on white with a red outline, and the rest only on directional arrows. No state doesn’t use them, thus failing the secind aspect of universality (consistency).

In general, a red circle means “no”, regardless of it being crossed out. Swapping the red outline for black (and adding in the cross for good measure) suddenly makes the sign mean “now yes”.

Blue signs (obligation) sometimes carry stronger instructions than red ones, and often times the same (e.g. “no tirning left” or “you can only go right” mean the same).

Some places, for readability’s sake make the cross made of multiple thinner lines with empty space, showing the pictogram underneath.

However, what you showed is in fact poor design, as opposed to what you’re calling poor design yourself.

Most people aren’t colorblind in that they don’t see any color (just shades of grey), most, in fact, do see some colors.

Wanting to be fully inclusive, we have three main categories of signs to cover (currently used under the Vienna convention). These are: Obligatory signs (red on blue, no outline), Prohibitory signs (black on white, red outline) and End of prohibition (black on white, black outline, crossed out).

These signs can be fully distinguished by someone truly colorblind - the first group of signs has no outline, the second does, and the third is additionally crossed out.

Sure, the second and 3rd categories could’ve been swapped out (red being additionally crossed out and black not).

However, the Vienna convention was written in the late sixties, pretty much at the apex of black-and-white photography. So, on a b&w photo, a red sign wouldn’t be red. It being crossed out (and black), someone not colorblind would probably jump to the conclusion that, crossed out, it wasn’t important. The outline gives some additional contrast on a light background, carrying a resound meaning - “yes” or “no”.

That’s why this style was chosen. It’s a vestage of a bygone era, but in context it makes sense. And, with “true” color blindness being kind of like a black-and-white camera, the current arrangement is in fact probably the best for colorblind people.

Additionally, when rolling down a highway past the sign you glanced at only for a split second, the red cross would only serve to obscure the pictogram. The pictogram being whole aids in legibility. If it’s the end of the prohibition, it not being as clear seems to be the better alternative.

Since the sign is turned towards the viewer, it just seems as if someone drunk placed it a few meters right from where it was supposed to be.

He’s the US VP.

I’d love if this was a joke.

Surprisingly a lot of clauses in EULAS are and get “stricken” (even though this one still stands).

Short answer: the bank won’t give your shiny new tree-planting business a loan as easily as it will to a “liquid tank tree replacement” one.

Long answer:

• Trees take time to grow
• Trees need to be planted
• Trees make shade
• Animals like birds and insects like bees and mosquitos like to live next to them
• Trees don’t need electricity
• Trees take in heat radiated from the pavement
• Trees don’t look cool

While algae are more efficient at turning CO2 into oxygen in theory, in practice algae don’t have a good climate in such a tank (no oxygen without ventilation, i.e. constant electricity and they get cooked through the glass).

All in all, more of a gimmick than anything.

The problem with most paradoxes is that they’re strawmen.

Let’s look at the Wiktionary definition of Tolerance:

1. (uncountable, obsolete) The ability to endure pain or hardship; endurance. [15th–19th c.]
2. (uncountable) The ability or practice of tolerating; an acceptance of or patience with the beliefs, opinions or practices of others; a lack of bigotry. [from 18th c.]
3. (uncountable) The ability of the body (or other organism) to resist the action of a poison, to cope with a dangerous drug or to survive infection by an organism. [from 19th c.]
4. (countable) The variation or deviation from a standard, especially the maximum permitted variation in an engineering measurement. [from 20th c.] And as sugar on top, the etymology: From Middle French tolerance, from Latin tolerantia (“endurance”), from tolerans, present participle of Latin tolerō (“endure”).

So tolearnce isn’t some omniforgiving quality, it’s the quality of “I don’t agree with you, but am prepared to endure up to a reasonable point”. This simple check at what the word means renders the paradox moot as the formulation of the paradox implies tolerance to be an infinite amount of forgiveness when it’s in fact a very limited amount of enduring things. And this limitedness is present in all uses of the word, be it in politics, engineering or medicine.