toebert

They absolutely were, without them there’s no rhetoric of “oh the other right wing party left us without money so we need to raise taxes to pay back debts”, they’re then also free to do all the unpopular shit to make sure they’re not re-elected and there’s money again to steal. It’s a back and forth team effort.

I never pre-order, there is no benefit.

Early access is misleading, there are games which are “released” and would barely count as early access and vice-versa, so I just treat them equally.

The criteria for me is that based on reviews or some gameplay footage it seems like I can get £1/hour worth of enjoyment out of it. I tend to look for how many hours do people have when they leave reviews and how many have they played since, rather than just what they say. If I’m unsure if I’ll like it and there is not enough videos or reviews to give me certainty, i may take a risk on £10 and below games depending on how bored I am at the time.

Sure, but they have reported that the child is capable of making their own decisions and fully understand the consequences:

A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having “capacity” and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.

So it seems they assessed it, found that the child can make the decision, then made the decision themselves instead.

The point I made is that for them to decide about this case the outcome of the assessment should have been something more like “established that the child is not developed/mature/whatever enough to make a decision that can potentially end their lives until they reach 18y of age” or “the child has been exposed to harmful religious propaganda for years…” instead. Basically, anything that’d clarify the reason and criteria that enables them to make this decision on the child’s behalf against their wishes (even if they are illogical).

Worrying when they start making the decisions you don’t agree with sounds like worrying once the milk is already spilled, especially when precedents are a thing. They are a lot easier to make than overturn.

I disagree with this being a “slippery slope fallacy”, I think there is already something wrong here even if the outcome is still agreeable, hence my conflict.

I find it difficult to tell how I feel about this. On the one hand it seems in this case the health board is trying to ensure the child survives the operation while trying to honour their wish to avoid the transfusion unless it’s clearly necessary, which all sounds good. I also recognise that the reason the child is refusing it is due to religion which they probably had no choice but to be indoctrinated in from birth.

On the other hand, all parties recognise that the child is capable of making their own decision and understand the consequences, but yet still gets ignored. This seems like a slippery slope. Where is the line when the court can decide what happens to someone’s body against their will? I could understand it if they also claim the person is unable to make the choice for themselves (e.g. too young to understand the consequences, or under the influence of propaganda), but they are not claiming that.

There is a “non-food crops” slice in the agricultural land part which seems to do exactly this though.

They’re doing their part in UK politics. Tories stole everything they could and drove it all into the ground until everyone got sick and elected labour. Now they’re raising taxes to put money back in and doing everything they can to make sure they’re hated enough that there is no chance they get re-elected. Then, Tories can just walk back in and take all the money coming in from the new taxes again. It’s a beautiful cycle of the general population getting fucked from both sides.

It feels like this is treating symptoms, however helpful it may seem in the short term.

Obesity in pets is 100% the fault of the owner, although pet food manufacturers don’t make it easy… I have 2 cats whose breed is well known for being commonly overweight but they’re both at their ideal recommended by the vet. It did take effort to find healthier food for them and the correct amount, as well as build up their habits that they get as much as is in their bowl and nothing more regardless of the amount of complaining. It’s the same logic as with humans, count the calories going in and adjust that - except pet food manufacturers don’t often disclose even an estimate.

Outside cats are a divisive topic already though, in those cases it’s arguable whether the owner is solely responsible for it all (due to the decision to let them out) or the other people who also feed the clearly well fed cat a 2nd and 3rd meal because they’re trying to befriend it or it “looks hungry”.

If we could just have a “don’t feed someone else’s pet unless you’re asked to” mentality + people would research good food for their pets as a standard it’d go a long way imo and it seems safer than putting animals on drugs.

I think your example is great for how the messaging of “pick a job you love and you’ll never work a day”/“you can be whatever you want to be” can be quite harmful, I know several people in similar situations with various art/creative degrees.

The only thing I’d add is to consider what a degree will do for you if you can’t work in the field it’s for. E.g if you get a degree in marine biology it may be used to re-train as a teacher or similar, but not much else. Meanwhile a degree in some business subject will probably allow you to apply for most office jobs in general. You may not love it, but it’s a lot easier to have a decent salary and find a hobby than to starve trying to get paid for your hobby.

This is true but there is a matter of being able to split up work into multiple pieces easily and prioritise between services. E.g. the piece of legacy service that nobody likes to touch, has no tests and is used for 2% of traffic can take its’ time getting sorted out without blocking all the other services moving on.

You still have to do it and it should be ASAP, but there are more options on how to manage it.

Nah, we just let half the country flood once a year instead.

I’m just so tired of paying taxes and then having to spend more money to support various organisations to fight the government using my money against me. Even sending representatives emails about these issues just feels like spending 5-10 mins of my time to write it, then paying for 5 mins of their time to get back a long version of “yea sure”. I might as well just start setting money on fire instead, same outcome less effort.