toebert

The cli has one other benefit which I think is rarely recognised: it’s pretty easy to tell someone you need to run “xyz -a -b -c” (bringing the safety risk with it to be fair), but it gets a lot harder to be like “so in the top left there is a cog button that opens a panel on the right where you’re looking for the 2nd tab and there’ll be a checkbox”.

The things I appreciate even more than a good gui are programs with a good gui and a cli.

Honestly McDonald’s is one of the worst foods you can eat and there are few places in the UK you can’t order it, so as far as making the food options worse for kids… eh I don’t see it either.

Some of the arguments are good in the article, e.g. the places where there are multiple dark kitchens sharing the same place and equipment, ensuring allergy requirements are followed for each seems hard.

That being said there is actually an issue with them which is not really mentioned (and it’s as much an issue with the delivery apps). They can be listed as available without a food safety certification. It shows in most of the apps, but it’s only if you actually look for it really. It makes it so easy to just create a new digital storefront and sell crap. Maybe your reviews bomb in 3-4 weeks enough that people stop ordering, but hey just make a new one from the same place and you’re back in business.

I’ve found these places can be rather annoying in smaller towns (I live in one now), but not really a big deal in cities cuz there are so many options there. There are about 4 “different” burger places here on the apps that are the same place (same items on the menu but different names, same pictures even, same address listed, very similar prices) and it’s inedible - there’s a separate group of 3-4 for Mexican food, same situation. They did pretty much what I described above, one showed up, it was shit, lasted a few months and it’s now at 3 stars or similar then another “new” one showed up and followed the same path and so on. It’s too easy to sign up as a “restaurant”.

It also makes it kind of an exercise to order from a new place and have to investigate if it’s gonna be just the same garbage or if it’s a genuine new place.

I think the solution would be forcing the apps the confirm a food certification with a business name matching it before allowing them to sell food. It’d help with the renaming, and also with the food safety concerns.

Luckily, the focus is on the important things. The government doesn’t have the resources to help the people who can’t afford to eat, when there are such problems still around as kids using social media.

Somehow food and shelter doesn’t seem to make it into the “protect the kids” bills they push…

/s, just in case

I can’t say I know the answer but a few ideas:

• did you access it with a browser? Maybe it snitches on you or some extension does?
• did you try to resolve it with a public DNS server at any point (are you sure nothing forwarded the request to one)?

You could try it again, create the domain in the config and then do absolutely nothing. Don’t try to confirm it works in any way. If you don’t see the same behaviour you can do one of the above and then the other and see when it kicks in. If it gets picked up without you doing anything…then pass!

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.

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.

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.