Guavanaut posted:

Tweeting David Icke level bullshit is the new 'decent as gently caress'.

smellmycheese posted:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4OGEdClyYaY

OwlFancier posted:

You would think it would be quite hard to set fire to a large pile of frozen water but seemingly not.

Beefeater1980 posted:

Re folk music, Magpie Lane is pretty good (and how I learned that the Monkey Island music I remembered was actually a folk song, “Oh Brown Ale”).

forkboy84 posted:

Youtube ads really suck, but if you want a real treat try watching stuff on the Chinese site Youku Squarespace! if you sign up with my code in the description below you'll get 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain!

kecske posted:

every time a figurehead emerges above the parapet of left wing ideology, the ancient westminster dredging machines begin to turn to scrape up anything and everything they can on them and their past. Then they post it all on twitter and just like flinging poo poo at a wall, eventually something sticks and then that's it. we all collectively throw our arms up and abandon all hope and interest in that movement. meanwhile, the material conditions of existence for anyone outside of the 1% steadily deteriorate, the planet warms another quarter degree, and the cycle begins anew.

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

Puberty blockers:

I too am not 100% on this (I mean in terms of understanding).

When people say to me stuff like no one under the age of 18 should get these things, what I have gleaned mostly from here (and stand to be corrected!) and say to them - well to the ones who are willing to have a proper discussion anyway - is:
"As I understand it, if you go through puberty in your outward body, then irreversible physiological changes occur. However, if you take puberty blockers and don't go through puberty at the 'usual' age, and then when you're 18 or whatever decide that actually you don't wish to transition, you stop taking the blockers and have puberty, albeit at a later age than most people, and with no adverse effects."

Is this understanding right?

happyhippy posted:

I'm surprised the pound or stocks aren't crashing, seeing there was gently caress all announced by Liz today.
There's 6 or so weeks before the prices increase, and right now its all 'wait and see what genius thing she will do that no one can see or spotted before to save the UK'.

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

WhatEvil posted:

Queen Elizabeth II the eternal lich, sitting on her throne of skulls:

frumpykvetchbot posted:

smellmycheese posted:

https://twitter.com/RobinFlavell/status/1568321608300855297

Reveilled posted:

Check your employment contract. Mine has the phrasing "x days annual leave per year, plus bank holidays" so while I won't know until I go into work on Monday I'm expecting to get that day as extra holiday, since they made it a real bank holiday. Whereas I could imagine a contract which didn't mention bank holidays at all, or had phrasing like "x days annual leave per year, which includes y bank holidays" would be poo poo outta luck.

Jaxyon posted:

SO probably the correct place to ask:

My understanding is that the way the UK government interacts with the monarchy is that they pretend the monarch isn't involved, except they are, often, but not expected to actually disagree with anything.

Is that correct?

Mourning Due posted:

same. September 2024. £270k to go. Paying £2350 a month, which is &£1000 over-pay, £450 in interest. If rates go up to 6%, and that's what we remortgage on, if I've done my math right (highly unlikely tbf), we'd be paying £1350 in interest each month 😐.

Failed Imagineer posted:

Eh, it depends but you're probably not better off locking in at 5+% on the chance that your rate may be 6+% at some point in the next 5 years for a certain period of time, that seems like a recipe for serious overpayment due to unreasonable pessimism. But then again, Tories...

oxford_town posted:

Why is a government-owned energy firm that invests in green energy a bad thing?

quote:

After growing the virus, the researchers monitored how infectious the samples were. The researchers found that patient samples did not contain infectious material after eight days following the onset of symptoms. This means, that up until eight days, the patients can still spread the disease. After that point, patients are unlikely to spread the virus. However, these findings do not mean the virus that causes COVID-19 disappears after 8 days. The researchers found that the genetic material of the virus remained in the samples, but it was unable to grow and therefore should not infect others.

Before this research study, there was a lack of laboratory data to understand this very important factor in the spread of COVID-19.

Brendan Rodgers posted:

They're working for me. Maybe you have been spared for some higher purpose.