three

artist / uiux / web3
@nonon_house artist /
COO @scatter_art / co-founder @mini_labo_en / artist @OekakiConnect

[three @three________]

discord for NIITs
https://t.co/2w0KtLcCa6

[three @three________]

@__PRL_ thank you thats wilhelm

[three @three________]

@chizutaberu i just studied steve huston a lot tbh his book is very good

[three @three________]

@AlboMP clip of a journo asking ant to define what a family is would do iron man numbers fwiw

[three @three________]

you truly have no idea the extent of the australian government's systematic hatred for its native working class families. they want you broke and they want you gone. they want the very taxonomic definition of you erased to the point that your entire existence is never entertained as anything beyond a hallucinated footnote. have you ever fully considered that what was once, in living memory, the most categorically normal family unit (a breadwinner + a parent who stays at home to raise their children) is now considered a bizarre novelty? that it is codified as an edge-case? that the most fundamental arrangement of human proliferation is quietly being taxed, means-tested, and engineered out of existence? do you have any idea how actively your government is rigging every apparatus explicitly to punish the most humble of humble aspirations (raising and providing for a family of your own)? consider this: a single-income family taking in $200k annually (a once completely respectable and ostensibly top 3-4% income; now effectively peasant-tier post-covid). one tax-free threshold, 47% marginal tax rate, $60k lost to the ATO before you've even bought a single $8 bottle of full cream milk. if the mother (or father, i do not care about gender roles for the purpose of this illustration) instead decides to put your kids in daycare and split the earnings 50/50 with a job of her own (2x $100K incomes), that's two tax-free thresholds, and a marginal tax rate of 32% in both cases. in this scenario the australian government has just awarded your family (for dumping your kids in daycare, where a melbournian freakshow who has sex with animals is raping them and feeding them his bodily fluids btw https://t.co/3MVVYeRLXu) a $14,562 dollar bonus. you were rewarded the cost of {choose your poison: 1) 9-10 months worth of groceries; 2) 3-4 months worth of mortgage repayments; 3) a modest but honestly very good value JDM import Toyota Crown Athlete; 4) a year of elite private school fees; 5) a single SA power bill} for not being at home with your children. same income; apples to apples; all that changed is that now not even a single parent in your household is spending the majority of their waking time with your children. that's the only chip that changed hands. lets put your increasingly minute slither of the GDP pie on the table and compare. single-income $200k (that's $200k market output, plus the childcare and household work the at-home parent does); the GDP pie doesn't grow or shrink, but it's apricot pie and it tastes good enough to satisfy an epicurean outlook on life. dual-income, 2x $100k but you are now paying a childcare worker to fill in for you with your children. the bean counters will tell you this is in fact more economic activity (two market salaries plus a whole childcare sector employed to do the job the at-home parent was previously doing for free, with their own children). the australian government treats this as shiny new economic activity but it is not net-new value. It is the same care work and the same dollar value, just shifted from the unpaid economy to the paid one (minus the slice the family now spends to outsource the operation of their family), it just picked up an invoice along the way and got bean-counted as growth. the apricot pie is now a shit pie and it tastes like shit. the australian government has subscribed to a measurement illusion and rewarded your family for your assistance in recalibrating their yardstick. you are being paid to eat shit.

Pigou: if a man marries his housekeeper, GDP falls.

"youre fixating on a single quirk of taxation architecture" no the pattern is very obvious actually. if you put your child in daycare the australian government will cover up to 90% of the bill. even in the $200k example that's $14k a year, per child (close to $20k for younger siblings where subsidy climbs to 95%) paid every year to have someone other than you spend time with your children. i am generally happy to celebrate any support (financial or otherwise) for new families. but ask yourself: what amount will the australian government pay you to raise your children yourself in your own home? the incentive mechanisms do not flow in that direction. there is an increasingly robust price on outsourcing your children, and no price at all for raising them. consider Parental Leave Pay: ~$20k plus super for time off with a newborn. sounds great. except the 120 PPL days entitlement originates with and belongs to the mother, not the father. not only can the father only access PPL as a share of her days, but that transfer is also capped at 105 days. and then we see the pattern again: if the mother does not work, if she is at home raising her children whilst her husband provides on a single-income, the total PPL days available is 0. that's ~$20k awarded only if specifically the mother is working. a full-time mother and a breadwinner father has no access to PPL at all. mechanisms for specifically a father providing for his family literally do not exist. not a quirk, not an edge-case blindspot, the exact and very normal scenario of a father providing for his family is specifically voided. soo thats $14,562 bonus for reshaping your income in such a way that neither parent is home (despite otherwise making the same amount of money), + ~$10k CCS to further reward you for leveraging against time with your children, and a further ~$20k PPL as an incentive specifically and only for households where the mother works. in many cases these are laudable supports for australian families, but please ask yourself why exactly and only 'mother at home with children, father as sole-income' is repeatedly punished and excluded.

and the contrived $200k example isnt even a respectable bag. rough new cost of some semblance of what was, until recently, a common, normal lifestyle. median home now costs $1 million. median. 3 years ago 43% of households could afford to buy this median home. today it is 14%. mortgage servicing now eats >50% of household income. your ancestors had the house on a single income. imagine again: you, father, single-income. you're already losing out on taxgibs to equivalent dual-income households who sold time with their children for an edge over you, and even if you could afford the house, you lose out to their superior borrowing power. everything always works out better if you just leave your kids with someone else.

every yardstick this nation uses to measure progress is a workforce metric. you're a mother raising your own children full-time and it doesn't move any of those numbers (we forgot how to even measure those numbers actually). you don't narrow the pay gap, you don't tithe to the superfunds. $21.5 billion to lift wages in female-dominated industries, zero invested in maximising time you spend holding your child's tiny hands. you chose to be a mother instead of Participating In The Workforce and dissolved out of national consciousness. you're a freak now.

[three @three________]

you truly have no idea the extent of the australian government's systematic hatred for its native working class families. they want you broke and they want you gone. they want the very taxonomic definition of you erased to the point that your entire existence is never entertained as anything beyond a hallucinated footnote. have you ever fully considered that what was once, in living memory, the most categorically normal family unit (a breadwinner + a parent who stays at home to raise their children) is now considered a bizarre novelty? that it is codified as an edge-case? that the most fundamental arrangement of human proliferation is quietly being taxed, means-tested, and engineered out of existence? do you have any idea how actively your government is rigging every apparatus explicitly to punish the most humble of humble aspirations (raising and providing for a family of your own)? consider this: a single-income family taking in $200k annually (a once completely respectable and ostensibly top 3-4% income; now effectively peasant-tier post-covid). one tax-free threshold, 47% marginal tax rate, $60k lost to the ATO before you've even bought a single $8 bottle of full cream milk. if the mother (or father, i do not care about gender roles for the purpose of this illustration) instead decides to put your kids in daycare and split the earnings 50/50 with a job of her own (2x $100K incomes), that's two tax-free thresholds, and a marginal tax rate of 32% in both cases. in this scenario the australian government has just awarded your family (for dumping your kids in daycare, where a melbournian freakshow who has sex with animals is raping them and feeding them his bodily fluids btw https://t.co/3MVVYeRLXu) a $14,562 dollar bonus. you were rewarded the cost of {choose your poison: 1) 9-10 months worth of groceries; 2) 3-4 months worth of mortgage repayments; 3) a modest but honestly very good value JDM import Toyota Crown Athlete; 4) a year of elite private school fees; 5) a single SA power bill} for not being at home with your children. same income; apples to apples; all that changed is that now not even a single parent in your household is spending the majority of their waking time with your children. that's the only chip that changed hands. lets put your increasingly minute slither of the GDP pie on the table and compare. single-income $200k (that's $200k market output, plus the childcare and household work the at-home parent does); the GDP pie doesn't grow or shrink, but it's apricot pie and it tastes good enough to satisfy an epicurean outlook on life. dual-income, 2x $100k but you are now paying a childcare worker to fill in for you with your children. the bean counters will tell you this is in fact more economic activity (two market salaries plus a whole childcare sector employed to do the job the at-home parent was previously doing for free, with their own children). the australian government treats this as shiny new economic activity but it is not net-new value. It is the same care work and the same dollar value, just shifted from the unpaid economy to the paid one (minus the slice the family now spends to outsource the operation of their family), it just picked up an invoice along the way and got bean-counted as growth. the apricot pie is now a shit pie and it tastes like shit. the australian government has subscribed to a measurement illusion and rewarded your family for your assistance in recalibrating their yardstick. you are being paid to eat shit.

Pigou: if a man marries his housekeeper, GDP falls.

"youre fixating on a single quirk of taxation architecture" no the pattern is very obvious actually. if you put your child in daycare the australian government will cover up to 90% of the bill. even in the $200k example that's $14k a year, per child (close to $20k for younger siblings where subsidy climbs to 95%) paid every year to have someone other than you spend time with your children. i am generally happy to celebrate any support (financial or otherwise) for new families. but ask yourself: what amount will the australian government pay you to raise your children yourself in your own home? the incentive mechanisms do not flow in that direction. there is an increasingly robust price on outsourcing your children, and no price at all for raising them. consider Parental Leave Pay: ~$20k plus super for time off with a newborn. sounds great. except the 120 PPL days entitlement originates with and belongs to the mother, not the father. not only can the father only access PPL as a share of her days, but that transfer is also capped at 105 days. and then we see the pattern again: if the mother does not work, if she is at home raising her children whilst her husband provides on a single-income, the total PPL days available is 0. that's ~$20k awarded only if specifically the mother is working. a full-time mother and a breadwinner father has no access to PPL at all. mechanisms for specifically a father providing for his family literally do not exist. not a quirk, not an edge-case blindspot, the exact and very normal scenario of a father providing for his family is specifically voided. soo thats $14,562 bonus for reshaping your income in such a way that neither parent is home (despite otherwise making the same amount of money), + ~$10k CCS to further reward you for leveraging against time with your children, and a further ~$20k PPL as an incentive specifically and only for households where the mother works. in many cases these are laudable supports for australian families, but please ask yourself why exactly and only 'mother at home with children, father as sole-income' is repeatedly punished and excluded.

and the contrived $200k example isnt even a respectable bag. rough new cost of some semblance of what was, until recently, a common, normal lifestyle. median home now costs $1 million. median. 3 years ago 43% of households could afford to buy this median home. today it is 14%. mortgage servicing now eats >50% of household income. your ancestors had the house on a single income. imagine again: you, father, single-income. you're already losing out on taxgibs to equivalent dual-income households who sold time with their children for an edge over you, and even if you could afford the house, you lose out to their superior borrowing power. everything always works out better if you just leave your kids with someone else.

every yardstick this nation uses to measure progress is a workforce metric. you're a mother raising your own children full-time and it doesn't move any of those numbers (we forgot how to even measure those numbers actually). you don't narrow the pay gap, you don't tithe to the superfunds. $21.5 billion to lift wages in female-dominated industries, zero invested in maximising time you spend holding your child's tiny hands. you chose to be a mother instead of Participating In The Workforce and dissolved out of national consciousness. you're a freak now.

[St. Thomas Aquinas @Aquinas_Quotes]

The fourth help to chastity is to shun idleness, and to engage in bodily toil. We read in the book of Sirach,
➡️“Idleness has taught much evil” (xxxiii. 29).
Idleness is pre-eminently an incentive to sins of the flesh. Hence Ezechiel says,
➡️“Behold, this was the iniquity of Sodom your sister, pride, fulness of bread, abundance, and idleness” (xvi. 49).
St. Jerome likewise writes, in his letter to the monk Rusticus,
➡️“Do some work, that so the devil may always find you employed.”

[three @three________]

@LeeRespecter the only apparatus that benefits ONP is the decades-long coordinated public fabrication that they are some ultra right wing racism party, which the ABC has materially contributed to.

[three @three________]

@hassundotX @Kandii its me but i said they could use it

[three @three________]

@gomi_kvzv_tarov よいくも

[three @three________]

i gotta get back in the fruit game

[nonon house @nonon_house]

i’m a nonon nonon nana

[three @three________]

@mpopv

[three @three________]

@DavidLeyonhjelm @ab_cd_goldfish @PaulineHansonOz astute as ever David, but a highly liquid housing market isn't even in the top 100 things I care about for my nation.

[three @three________]

@UltraTerm im very confused by their comments because it seems plainly true to me that, overwhelmingly, the process-obsessed artist-intent-worshipers seem to be the most loudly anti AI

[three @three________]

@UltraTerm no transmog them into the superior jpegxl

[three @three________]

retroactively calling this aoty
https://t.co/rj0toaOm2E

[three @three________]

@RodeenSilver @TiaStaC hi rodeen

[とがみ @nonbiricos]

あなたはだぁれ？