Search results for:

I think that came over as weird to a lot of people but it feels like a stretch to go from what he wrote there to inferring actual criminal activity in the form of sexual harassment.

I understood the words you used. My question was why is so much time and money spent on deciding who is responsible for each delay. Is it to work out who is liable for the refund to the customer?

Is that for the delay-repay thing? I'm always amazed at how much money must end up being returned to customers.

I defer to your expertise on this, but my understanding is that it wouldn't create those problems if they don't already exist. Rival companies would effectively bid to run specific services (or bundles of services) within a constrained timetable against certain obligations.

I agree. I'm not convinced that it's a viable plan for the railways.

You can't have 5 different train companies running services between popular destinations (e.g. Guildford <-> Waterloo).

Some people suggest that this is exactly what should happen. The model would be the same as airlines where (as I understand it) airlines bid for departure slots and it's then on them to make their service as competitive as possible to attract custom and make profit. The claim is that what you end up with is a price war and better and better deals for customers.

I guess where the analogy falls down is that trains are a necessary public service in a way that air connections are not. Therefore you need someone to run services on routes that aren't profitable, and to work out how to incentivise them to do that.

I don't think I am hopeful really. There don't seem to be any positive outcomes. Trump seems to have broken the core political system in a country that had become increasingly divided and partisan. We saw something similar here with Johnson but we seem to have clawed our way back towards sense in government, albeit with an emboldened far-right.

Has anyone tried loop earplugs for reducing levels when playing/practicing in a group? Any thoughts?

I don't think that anyone is in favour of corruption, but what Trump has achieved in "making his own weather" is quite remarkable and it's difficult to know how the American "left" can respond. What Biden does right now is not really significant in and of itself, but how his party and their base responds to it might be quite informative. If they seem to get a pass for this then does it open up more options for them? I don't mean in terms of straightforward corruption but in terms of conforming only with the letter of the law, rather than being constrained by (previously) commonly understood codes.

There's only so much value in continuing to lose honourably in a system in which the electorate doesn't seem to value honour at all.

The entire concept is quite bonkers (although I don't know how it relates to pardons for people on death row, which I'm in favour of).

This is the question for me: does this mark the end of Democrats "going high"? If this means that they are going to degrade the office in pursuit of their personal goals, does it mean that they'll also do it in pursuit of their political goals? Is there any way that this can be perceived positively as Democrats giving themselves permission to join Trump in ignoring previous political norms to get positive things done?

Ggregg

Interesting take on making the closest thing to genuine ramen in as short a time as possible. I think you'd need to have a fairly good local supermarket to find all the relevant ingredients, but it does look tasty:

https://youtu.be/HGfo4dJTLgo

Do we trust this old Cannondale dropout design? It's always seemed mad to me.

Are those removable at all? Or are they a totally permanent fix?

I guess you missed my DM 5 days ago about this after you mentioned it in my wanted thread?

A couple of questions for anyone with knowledge of solar setups (for context we're thinking about a 10-panel setup on our SW-facing roof, to be installed during a full-house refurb):

• Is it a no-brainer to get a battery? I'm trying to work out the pros and cons. Storing excess production and running stuff from a battery would obviously reduce kWh used from the grid, but is the extra initial cost, space and general faff worth it? Would a battery pay for itself fairly quickly?

• The panels would be split (6:4) between two adjoining staggered roofs that have the same orientation but slightly different pitches. The initial schematic that has been worked up shows a single inverter for all 10 panels. I've read that the output of the entire array can be choked by a single panel being shaded. Is it a better idea to have a separate inverter for each roof or even for every panel?

Out of interest, has anyone got an example of a redevelopment that they'd describe as "soulful"?

Madison bib tights added.

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing that farms might go under or not.

And I don't know what you mean by this

But you are also being given a source of income as well as an asset you can sell...hypothetically for £2.2m in the C4 e.g.

It is a much broader argument I agree. I think part of the justification for taxes like this (alongside "let's get one over on the rich cunts!") is to to wave the balance sheet around frantically as if any level and target of taxation is completely justifiable because the situation is so terrible.

I think that some family farms will go under and that some will downsize. Where the land from the sale of those farms goes is another question.

What do you think the effect on the farming sector will be?

In general I've just found it quite odd how many people, who I think have a deep and subtle understanding of macroeconomics, have responded to the Labour budget (and other financial announcements) without questioning the underlying assumption that our national economy needs to be treated like a household budget i.e., that we need to tax the shit out of everything before investing in anything.

In all of these situations where tax gets increased, people put forward this argument, but there's no obvious metric or cut-off for "can't afford it." If something gets more expensive for everyone then a small number of people will literally be unable to buy it without going into the red, but there will be a larger group of people who will have to use money that they'd earmarked for something else they wanted. A fair proportion of those will decide that it's too much of a strain on their lifestyle so they'll just not buy/invest in the original thing.

Ultimately taxing anything will make it less affordable so you have to have higher income/wealth to afford it than before. With farming the link seems fairly direct, since your ability to pay the tax is directly linked to the profitability of the thing that's being taxed. I think that the argument that this change will reduce tax avoidance and therefore reduce land values is a good, positive one, but I've still yet to see much engagement with the other obvious consequence i.e. that it will become harder to turn a profit on a farm that you've inherited, and what that means for the sector.

Thanks, might well be interested pending some rough geometry.

I think that anything could generate loads more discussion on here (LFGSS being full of smart, politically active people) except that people seem to get irked at discussion getting to long or too serious unless it's in a dedicated thread. It doesn't take much for it to all kick off: just one person needs to say that the truth is very obviously X.

And I totally agree about your news filter, especially during a Trump presidency. I will wholeheartedly embrace anything that means I don't actually have to listen to the fanta-coloured wankstain actually speak. I don't know whether that's mentally healthy or Olympic levels of denial.