Reorte

The last Amazon delivery was left, according to the email, in the safe space (the greenhouse, easily visible and easily accessible from the front door). Where it was actually left was on the doorstep in the pouring rain we had last weekend (fortunately the box in the package was plastic wrapped).

Indeed, and it's made even worse when you see what those in power want to do. The combination has left me with an incredibly bleak vision of the future (and that's from what people want to happen). The fact that a lot of people don't appear depressed is a sure sign that the concept of democracy is worrying. Still seems better than the alternatives though.

Had something similar a little while back. I was following the tracking, van was at the end of the track that leads to my house from the road, nothing, and shortly afterwards "available for connection from the post office." I suppose I can add this to my dislike of electronic everything, it would be harder for them to pull that trick without being able to just send you an electronic message rather than bothering to deliver. At least they'd have to get as far as the house to shove a card through the door.

They (usually) seem to keep going until something more serious and mechanical packs up.

Because in many cases it's simply impractical not to. Public transport can't cover a significantly greater proportion, and you'll never persuade everyone to walk or cycle in the depths of winter. There's a bigger picture too. Why do we make so much use of cars? Because modern life requires a great deal more travel than in the past. Why is that the case? Because shops, jobs, services etc. have centralised more and more. They've done that because it provides economies of scale and economic efficiencies, so businesses that didn't go along with that went out of business. It's not a consequence of deliberately shaping things around the car but simply from economic drives. And it's hard to see how that can be reversed. Some may say working from home and home deliveries and so on but that paints a pretty unappealing vision of the future, the cure there may be worse than the disease.

The problem you've got there is "what is the biggest single emitter of CO2 in the UK? Yes, you guessed it - Drax power station." That somewhat undermines the rest of your argument, because when it comes to burning wood that is overall carbon neutral, at least if the trees are replaced. The transport parts of it aren't of course, but going on about all the stuff emitted by Drax itself does give an impression of a non-neutral assessment. Is it the solution? No, but is it a stepping stone towards it? The problem I've got with net zero is it seems to drive people towards black and white extremes - "We must get rid of all of <x>!" It's rarely necessary or desirable to go to extremes, the desired outcomes can usually be achieved without it. Where I agree a little closer with what you're saying is the implication that anything that can get the "green" label chucked on it must therefore be done and not questioned (which is the same as with most issues).

The RMWeb issue sounds more like a cookie problem than a VPN one (unless the VPN somehow messes with the cookies too).

Why should they have it via the route we achieved it? You learn from the experience of others rather than following blindly, so why not shortcut to that point instead of treading the same ground?

I know. Talk about a society that's lost the plot completely.

That's fair enough, and as you notice I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this, so I'm apt to go on somewhat. "I don't like it" is a tricky one, but it is important. I'm of the opinion that's what's important about it is whether or not it's based on misconceptions of what a change will be like (although nothing's completely predictable so there's always some scope there). What I don't think is necessarily important are to say it has to be about tangible, practical reasons. Those certainly are aspects that need to be considered but they're not the only ones. Take our built surroundings for example. Whilst there are practical aspects to its architecture there are also ones that aren't anything to do with tangible or practical ones but which nevertheless can have a significant impact on quality of life. By way of example by all tangible and practical accounts I've been worse off ever since I moved to my present house, but I'm considerably happier (or at any rate less miserable!), and I'm strongly of the opinion that mental health is as or more important than physical. Poor physical health doesn't help good mental health so it matters, but as a cause rather less than in its own right.

So far I've not had any issues like that. If anything happens when ordering goods online it's the bank check anyway, which works in the same way. This is with Lloyds. Of course I've not given them a mobile number since I don't have one to give.

So far I've managed without any sort of mobile phone at all, and I'm quite happy with that. The bank calling the landline to put in a code from the screen (on the computer) is a minor nuisance, but no more. What does the smartphone do that removes the need for that?

So I think it boils down to just where is the balance, and how do we find it, because generally both sides of all of those are entirely reasonable. Every change that benefits one person will tread on the toes of another. That doesn't necessarily mean not going ahead (sometimes it will, sometimes it won't), but it does mean having to accept that the negatives to some might be very real rather than, as often seems to be the case, finding ways of dismissing them. Or thinking that we can somehow "rationally" decide what is good and bad for others, telling people what they should want, just as long as their views aren't based on complete and utter fiction. Oh, on the first point I did say that I've got no problem whatsoever with battery vehicles a few posts back. A city centre where most of the vehicles work that way is definitely an improvement in my book.

I was responding to a suggestion that implied that it should be. That raises another possible factor - wealth. Does more wealth result in a better health outcome because it means people with it can afford to live elsewhere, or does it just result in a better health outcome regardless? The likelihood is probably not 100% one or the other, but I wouldn't like to guess what the split is. Anyway I wasn't arguing against a cause and effect link, I was arguing against imposing measures against public opinion, something I find fundamentally objectionable for a democratic country to do, even when I agree with the measures. Only relevant if someone's arguing that there shouldn't be any of this. It's not a case of one extreme or the other.

I'd separate out actively spreading FUD about things like vaccines. I've no problem whatsoever with stamping down on that, where people are pushing outright lies. I didn't suggest there should be votes on everything, I suggested that decisions should attempt to gauge the general public opinion on proposed changes, i.e. for the people they're actually supposed to benefit, rather than pushing things through with "we know best." It's impractical to make that gauging completely accurate but it very much needs to be a fundamental part of the process. At the risk of being political failure to do so can (quite rightly) impact the outcome come the next election. There are downsides if you're a smoker. They are no downsides for me, but I'm willing to accept that letting other people make their choices can have a negative effect on me. There are obviously limits to that, but that'll always be my starting point.