beobab

For more than a year, I was paying for them to live there for free. That doesn't sound to me like I'm a parasite in this story.

Can you elaborate? Help us to understand your point of view.

I did learn valuable lessons, yes. Not that lesson, though. That's a lesson that you might need to unlearn. It will hold you back from trying anything on your own cognizance.

I learned a lot about contracts. I learned a lot about tenant laws. I learned a lot about insurance. I learned that if you have a cleaner employed in the houses you rent, then you have a legal right to enter the property to "inspect their work". I learned a lot about different types of people.

I did not learn any way, shape or form, that "having connections to government" would have made my efforts any easier.

For the landlord side: Renting out my one house in London after I bought another one to live in (across the country). I had tenants who flat out refused to pay their rent after a few months living there. This went on for several years, and it took legal battles and numerous court fees to evict them. None of which they turned up to contest.

Before they left, they plastered globs of lard on the walls, and destroyed the kitchen floor and wall by rigging the water pipes to constantly overflow down the outside wall.

I was not allowed to enter the property to inspect it, nor was I allowed to "harass them" by speaking to them face-to-face, because they didn't want me to. I was powerless.

Yes, they lost their deposit, but I was out of pocket tens of thousands, which I basically couldn't afford. I maxed out my credit cards and bank account overdrafts. Even selling the house, it took me nearly 5 years to get back to zero.

I'm not saying that UK law is worse for landlords, but the laws aren't particularly on the side of landlords either.

During work: I think it depends on your profession. If your job does not involve interacting other humans in any way, or you are all in the same room, then you do not need a phone to communicate.

Job hunting: This would be significantly harder without a personal phone, but regular trips to a recruitment agent's office could make it possible. I can certainly see that it would be a significant advantage to have a phone.

At home: Hugely depends on how far and wide your family have spread. If they are all within walking distance, then you don't need a phone. Sure it's more convenient, and sure, you'll spend a lot of time outside people's houses wondering if they're actually in, but that's how I grew up without a mobile phone. Interestingly, I would counter-argue (with myself) that you do need a phone if you are the only family member in a remote area, if only for your mental health.

Emergencies: Yes, sometimes you just need a phone.

So yes. A bit need.

Agreed.

That's not quite accurate. The law allows you to legitimately ask for permission to share the data for advertising purposes, but you have to be transparent with the details, and the advertiser has to have the same safeguards on the data as your company (they aren't allowed to re-sell it without the original company's knowledge, for example).

My understanding of the GDPR (did a course on it for work) is that it allows data sharing for advertising to named companies, but holds you and the advertiser responsible for ensuring that no-one else gets your data without permission and for letting you know if any such data breach occurs.

But I agree with you on the principle that bureaucracy very seldom does only the things I want.

I'm pretty sure that in the game "Prototype", the water tanks were breeding grounds for the weirdy alien looking creatures. It was fun to fly around in a helicopter spotting them (by heat signature) and blowing them up.

I had no idea they were real features in New York.

I was thinking the same thing. When I "play" with a new language or tool or concept, I try lots of different scenarios (search), until I can reliably predict how the new thing will work (learning).

Need vs want.

I don't NEED a computer at home, nor a mobile phone.

But I want one. And I am allowed to have one.

And someone else's dislike of my having those things does not stop me from being allowed to have them

Interesting subject. I am now considering whether to do a video set "JT learns X", where a qualified developer (me) takes a subject I know nothing about, and video my learning, and see all the "well, this makes no sense" -> "how could I even have misunderstood that, it's so simple" moments.

Would that be of interest to anyone other than myself?

So, is Gordon alive?

I actually like this idea. Mostly because it means that my Elite Dangerous time will be the same as my "local time".

I think this is an argument you could reasonably make if you give your money to web-sites that you find valuable.

Otherwise, the argument seems to be a case of "I don't like the way you got money/attention out of me", or "I want someone else to pay for the content I consume".

Agreed. There are horrendous arguments on both sides (as well as convincing ones), which makes it difficult for the average joe to come to a conclusion about who is right.

Science needs better marketing to be able to sell its conclusions in a more effective manner.

Note: I'm on the scientist's side, in case it was ambiguous.

Do you ever fall into the same trap yourself? Everyone (hyperbole) thinks that they are unbiased, but it’s rare to find someone who actually is.

This is packed full of manipulative language. It reads like propaganda.

I am astonished. I had no idea.

You can’t retroactively apply laws, thankfully.

I think one of the Dilbert books had this concept. Make one bullet point ridiculous so your boss can have some input and ask you to remove the “Be involved in a land war in Asia” step in your ten point plan.

Are you familiar with the maxim that people behave better if they believe they are being observed?

Would you agree that people would be less likely to “go off on one” if a draft message displayed a “this message could be construed as offensive” warning before they sent it?

Have you observed the phenomenon of “being bored with the internet”?

I’m not sure boredom is completely satiated by novelty.

I have experienced “I’m bored” events, where I had plenty of new experiences to try if I wanted.

Rebelling against the rebels?

How apt. :-)

Enjoying sex isn’t a sin. Sex is supposed to be held in the highest regard. It’s a wonderful and joyous thing. The point is, I believe, to avoid cheapening it, making it less than the truly awesome thing it is.

It’s supposed to be a priceless gift shared with your true love. Packaging it and selling it makes it less valuable.

I believe that if you approach the subject with that mindset, a lot of the decisions that society has made suddenly make a bit more sense.

I can’t help feeling that the general rise in hatred is fuelled by the press reporting every news story with so much “outraging”.

“You must be outraged by this now!” seems to be a rallying cry. Chill. Yes, there’s lots of chaotic evil people in the world, but most people are neutral, good or lawful.

[edit to clarify who was who]

And I can hear someone droning on in the background now, and it's stopping me from concentrating.

My dad used to say: "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained with stupidity", but I love yours too.

I seem to remember my university lecturer (way back in '96) demonstrating that rightmost evaluation could lead to "variable capture", but that "leftmost-outermost" evaluation would always avoid that problem.

It's been a while, however, so I might be remembering wrong (or indeed have misunderstood).

Why not? If he can convince a government panel that he can give them some value for their money, then it makes sense to "shell out money" (very persuasive language there - I approve) to him.

It's not free money. He has to give some value back.

Why not both? He's got money to spend.