Reorte

There's not a lot that I want that badly. Even if there was it would still be easy, because although I've actually got quite a small house it takes me ages to get around to doing anything anyway 🙂

If I wanted something that badly I'd probably also be working on a layout suited to it!

I can understand not wanting to buy a model that doesn't fit in with your layout, and not wanting to buy one if you don't have a suitable layout for it, it doesn't strike me as hair shirt, just whatever individual preferences and likes are. Whilst I personally wouldn't have a problem with running something completely out of place for a bit of fun from time to time it's not what I want to do routinely, so I'm unlikely to ever buy the model in the first place. Unless it was something I really, really wanted. In which case I'd be very tempted to build a layout around it.

Always just paid in cash on the door, simple and straightforward, and I'm not going to be all that fussed about a small difference in amount (happy for the club to have it).

I've seen a 4D Rubik's cube online. Good luck getting your head around that one! It displays it by following the maths - from a mathematical point of view you can project four dimensions on to three in the same way as you can project a 3D world on to a 2D surface (i.e. ordinary 3D graphics doing 3D to 2D, except starting one dimension away - conceptually that's beyond me but the maths works out pretty much the same).

How much thought matters is an interesting one. The idea that it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't manifest in anything outside the head is true enough, but then I think your point is that if the thought is there there's always the chance that it will. There was a post a little while back about thought, but the person who made it also made the point that he consciously tried to avoid any negative prejudices he had from showing. That could be someone with a mask but it sounded much more like someone aware of their own negative instincts and tried to do something about them. That sort of thinking isn't a problem at all, because the fundamental thought there is don't have a go at people, even if a bit of you wants to. It's very different from someone who basically wants to but is managing to hold it back some of the time. We've all got our own shortcomings after all, you can never remove all of them but you can be aware of them and want to try to avoid them or work around them, and wanting to do so is admirable. It's wanting to give in to them that's the problem.

I know the feeling, but I've also been on the other end of things, trying to find documentation that I need that's never been done. Documentation is like the box of bits you keep in case they'll come in useful some day. The vast majority never will but there's no way of knowing in advance which, so you're stuck with having to create and keep (in a manner that means it's capable of being found again) the lot.

Just because there can be problems with the amount and nature of red tape and regulations doesn't mean that it's always better to do nothing. Like everything there has to be a balance, and it's often the case of which is the lesser evil. The alternative is generally going all out to one extreme or the other, and that rarely works well.

Quite often I think yes, we do. And we need to watch ourselves for doing that. Democracy (at least when it works properly) is the opposite IMO, because it has to engage with everyone and not just the group, even (up to a point) some people we might prefer to hold our noses at. Anything political is treading on dangerous ground here but I think the worst governments are often the ones with the biggest majority, precisely because of this. I certainly don't claim to be a saint in this regard, but I'll try to use myself as an example nonetheless. There are numerous things about modern Britain that I really, really hate, they make me very upset and depressed, but as long as they're put in place by a democratically elected government it's right that they're here (well at least as long as it's not gone off in the opposite direction to the platform it was elected on). Doesn't mean I can't and won't voice my opinion on them, quite strongly - the democratic aspect means that I've got the right for that voice to be heard (in general, not in every situation, e.g. since it's off topic for here the mods could rightly say "stop talking about this.") That's the mechanism for avoiding groupthink. It's clearly not perfect but it does try to deal with the problem. Do I think society is making a colossal mistake in many areas? Yes. But what's a better method than accepting that social norms should be collectively agreed on? Oh, we'd all be tempted to force in whatever we think they should be if we could I'm sure, and I'm not sure that I could resist that temptation, but there's no way I could say that would be right.

Actually I do think there is a pernicious, subtle issue there, and in some ways it's more problematic because it's seen as acceptable. I made a point earlier about extremes, and about finding simple rules and applying them blindly and "consistently" - that definitely comes in to play, and there's a level beyond which we say "enough!" - which the people the OP was complaining about have certainly crossed as far as I'm concerned, but I do worry about a level of groupthink that has decided, often very rigidly, "this is acceptable, that is not, and anyone who disagrees must therefore be some sort of bigot and we can attack them accordingly." It feels all rather like a modern version of the sort of religious morality we usually get. It's easy to give it a pass because it's starting from a much better place than the more outright bigotry that we all (here) find unacceptable, but it feels like the sort of thing that can lead to it over time. What that means is that I think we need to judge everything on its own merits, and avoid a "this always applies." There IS a point where tolerance of different opinions goes too far and we say "enough it enough" and kick out the racists from the club. There's only a paradox if you take an absolutely rigid view of it. But we must absolutely avoid being, well, absolute about "this opinion is right and anyone who disagrees at all is scum." There's no completely reliable guideline to tell us where the lines between those lies (the only absolutes are things like logic, mathematics, and the laws of physics, anything else has an essential subjective component), we need to constantly assess it for ourselves.

I would very much like to see such a right. I think it's reasonable to have some limits on it, but it very definitely needs to exist IMO. The limits would be by amount (I think it's reasonable to have a maximum amount), and it would not be unreasonable to limit it to where the person is there in person for the goods or service. So tolls that expect you to pay online shortly afterwards - not acceptable, because you are there in person, ditto pay by app only car parks (both of which would frequently leave me with no means of payment whatsoever), but online purchases wouldn't be affected by it.

Good point, I'd somehow forgotten that part in several of my replies, e.g. where I was possibly putting it down to just admittedly shocking ignorance rather than malice. That completely removes any tiny suggestion that there should even be a smidgeon of benefit of doubt.

It sounds like the OP's questions were sufficient to hint at a degree of knowledge, and it's hard to see how an explanation of what a tram is could be anything other than patronising if given to anyone over the age of about five. The Didcot Swindon panel example's much harder, since you're going to be pitching whatever you say at the general member of the public level unless there are pretty obvious clues to the contrary. Under those circumstances whilst it's embarrassing there should be any cause of offence, although maybe her explaining to the children should've been a clue. Personally the closest I've been to the receiving end of that was being jealous that my nephews got to pull a lever in the box at Beamish and I didn't!

Binary is at least simple. It means you can pick a rule or guideline and follow it without thinking, so you're not the one who has to make decisions ("who are you to decide?") If anyone ever calls you inconsistent you should be proud, it usually seems to mean "doesn't stick to one oversimplified position and try to fit the world to shape that." That sort of binary thinking can lead to pretty ludicrous or unpleasant extremes even when it occurs in a basically decent position, and obviously when the starting point is unpleasant to begin with things get really nasty really fast. One thing I find well-meaning but I believe is counterproductive is that it feels like we're constantly being reminded of differences, this group or that group. I get that it's trying to say "think about these people" but by emphasising differences I feel it leads to more of that othering. History is a delicate one. We need to understand how and why we're where we are now, and learn from both the mistakes and the successes. But I also believe it's very unhelpful when people try to dredge historical issues forward to the present day. "I don't like you because of what someone who happened to be from the same geographical area two hundred years ago did to someone from the same geographical area as me two hundred years ago" is a pretty ridiculous concept, but it's common enough.

On the subject of glass when did it (presumably!) all change to that type that breaks in to not very sharp granules rather than nasty shards? I'm assuming (always a danger) has been a requirement long before this current debate started.