If it’s to favor bikes over scooters, that’s probably fine. If it’s to please the car lobby, that’s a sad, corrupt step back for society and democracy.

If all the people they killed come back alive and they’re still banned, all the killing they did wasn’t the reason for the ban.

…but they won’t come back.

Yeah, at some point the cat is both behind and in front of the pillow.

I think it is clear that it’s just a matter of time that a faster, more secure, free and open source operating system will win over a worse alternative.

How do you do it? Wired headphones never last too long for me. The cable starts breaking after a while. What’s the trick?

What percentage of people smoke cigarettes compared to the percentage that do cocaine? Perhaps prohibition would dramatically reduce the number of users, even if that number is guaranteed to never reach 0?

I’ve been following this rule for about a good decade now. It doesn’t apply only to Netflix series.

The are many series to watch; no point in starting to watch one without any guarantee that the series will keep consistent good ratings until the finale.

Unfortunately, once they start chopping fingers, it will not matter how well hidden those codes were.

I will not watch ads. That’s the first, unbreakable premise. If the service does not provide videos, I leave the service.

Good. However, if the intent is to discourage driving in central London, the penalty should not be an fixed rate for each vehicle. It should be a dynamic rate based on how much the people in the car earn. Otherwise you are only displacing people with low salary while freeing the roads for the rich that don’t care to pay £30.

In the video, the guy claims it’s the same device, with the same hardware, just the color is different. Do you think the guy got it wrong? Or do you think Lenovo made different variants of those devices?

I did mean to reply to your comment. Just trying to say that I don’t need 2nd homes to be taxed much more higher that 1st homes if the issue can be fixed without getting to that point. Although it shouldn’t be off the table if it’s necessary to guarantee people can have access to homes.

It’s not unreasonable, but if after taxing 3rd and 4th homes (etc.) to oblivion the issue persists, then also second homes should be taxed high. I truly believe that extreme would not be needed once it’s made humanely forbidden to own multiple homes without intention of ever living in them.

Worth adding that it should not be the number of homes what should be taxed, but based on the market value of those properties.

Why would they do that instead of removing the products from the stores?