Merlin run lots of stuff, including Sealife and Warwick Castle. I'll avoid the lot.
mjr
joined 5 months ago
So Merlin Entertainment basically thinks it knows better than doctors, some disabilities aren't real and it's fine to make people with severe anxiety stand in line until they suffer an attack. Lovely(!) Somewhere mistreating people with mental health issues is not a place I'll go for fun.
And the dataset is prbably racist, although in the reported case, it sounds like good old unreliable cross-race recognition by humans, with the evil eye pinging because it spotted someone and the store staff then telling the wrong person to naff off. It seems like a process or training failure if they don't ask the evil eye to confirm they've got the person it flagged before upsetting them.
In the stable repo, but there are backports, testing and unstable repos too, if you want later versions and accept more risk of bugs.
Because that's a freshwater lake on the inland side with interesting wildlife. Letting the sea in is a big call.
"there was no justification, knowing what he knew, for appointing him as ambassador" (03:22)
I disgree with Ian Hislop there. The justification was pretty obvious: appoint a friend of Jeffrey to work with the friend of Jeffrey that is US president and maybe spare us some of Trump's strange attacks. It's not a great justification and probably shouldn't have been enough, though. The way his appointment insults Epstein's victims should have been enough to stop it, and the risk of it failing like it has was just a cherry on the cake.
Except they don't, which is why they're losing ground. Also, the BBC mission is "to serve all audiences" and "inform, educate and entertain" and not simply to give people whatever junk TV gets the biggest audiences: that's more ITV/STV and 5.
Why would the BBC, which believes in the benefit of its output, suggest closing itself?
It won't, but if the primary aim of change is to save money, then it's the logical conclusion of that argument. This is proof by absurdity that the argument is flawed.
Right, I’m sure the BBC advertising iPlayer is why YouTube is now the second-most-watched “broadcaster” in the UK.
It's not the whole reason, but it is part of it. The public have been told repeatedly by Auntie that being tracked and studied is fine.
This change in habits has been gradual but inexorable. The reason for it is obvious: because streaming at any convenient time is more convenient than being locked into a broadcaster’s schedule.
But we're not locked into a broadcaster's schedule! We have recording devices that now perfectly display any broadcast programme at a later time of our choosing. Maybe you didn't realise that and I can't blame you: the BBC haven't been advertising it regularly for the last 15+ years.
The biggest benefit of streaming is that you can watch things that haven't been broadcast or that your device didn't store, but the cost of that is your privacy.
Your privacy objection is bogus. Here is the relevant section of the privacy policy.
That's not the privacy policy, but it does link to it. It's a misleading partial summary of some of it. If you click through to the full policy, you'll find the stuff I quoted.
Read what I said again: we’ll be using gas in 50 years.
We'll have to wait 50 years to know, but even if we are, it'll be much much less under any sane government, but it would be more if left to Reform.
Your cherry picked statistics for a windy day at 22:30 are a poor example. Check again at 17:00.
It's absurd to accuse someone of cherry-picking and then cherry-pick a time when the National Energy System Operator has invited bids for the Demand Flexibility Service because the price of gas-generated electricity is too high.
Maybe have a think about the majority of homes central heating.
A majority, but not a supermajority. Only about 60% of UK homes burn gas for heating despite all the encouragement and inducement since the 1970s in a scandal that makes promotion of diesel cars look like playschool stuff, and a farcical and pathetic target-missing attempt to encourage heat pumps in the last 10 years (target: 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, latest number I've seen: 91,000 per year and no, that's not missing a digit).
Oh and we have never been a major importer of Russian gas.
So? Buying gas and thereby driving the market price up is enough to benefit Russia. When you hear a gas boiler roar, it's helping fund Putin.
You're just showboating because we've had nine Putin-friendly Reform UK policies so far:
- building more gas turbine power stations
- cutting stamp duty on the biggest properties
- pulling out of the European Defence Fund
- cancelling our human rights act
- repealing the Equalities Act
- “scrapping” the BBC
- stopping the boats (any method that really does it will be basically either impossible or illegal)
- defending our borders (more insular isolationism is what Putin really loves)
- deporting illegal migrants (which would quickly become an ICE-style scandal deporting natives who look different and dwarf the Windrush scandal)
And the government will be reassessing those companies' contracts Real Soon Now. /s