Random Rants 92 - Not Enough Snerk

[Aiken_Drumn]

Well, I thought we were friends. It is clear now that was not the case.

Feel especially aggrieved that I bumped into one at a festival last week and spent a good ten minutes catching up with them! They signed the paperwork to sue me in march!

 

[Birdjaguar]

How terrible. Are their claims valid and supportable?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Snip

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well money can be a strong incentive. Hence the TX $10,000 bounty to turn in folks who get an abortion friend or not.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Some of your friends are suing you? Not exactly very friendly behaviour.

I don't know, it sounds like normal friend behaviour to me.

 

[Arakhor]

You need better friends then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wow, that's just opportunistic behaviour on their part.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Well money can be a strong incentive. Hence the TX $10,000 bounty to turn in folks who get an abortion friend or not.

Yeah that's all i can get some relief from. I assume they are in financial trouble to consider this as an option. Greed and poverty.

Wow, that's just opportunistic behaviour on their part.

Very much so.

 

[Synobun]

I have now missed the deaths of both my best friend's dogs. The first was unavoidable, since it was sudden, but this was known. We just thought we had more time.

I wish I had seen them more. I hadn't seen the first dog in years, because I was in the middle of my isolationist phase and kept making excuses not to visit. This time, I also hadn't seen the second dog in years (end of 2019), because of the pandemic and wanting to wait until later in the year when the train restarts. I had wanted to see her at least once before the end.

In a way, these two are, were, at the top of my "pets" list. I've never spent much time around animals, and I'd known these two for eight years, and taken care of them, and spent quite some time with them.

Well, c'est la vie.

 

[El_Machinae]

Very much so.

Can you hurt them on social media?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Perhaps AFTER the court case.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the only thing holding them back is their reputation. If they're not worried that their other friendships will be hurt after screwing you over .... yikes.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, the only thing holding them back is their reputation. If they're not worried that their other friendships will be hurt after screwing you over .... yikes.

Googling for a moment shows that you need a license for three or more tenants, which means you have to pay (upwards of 1000 pounds, not sure if the final amount is 1100* pounds or not). So not "bothering" to take a license in case one knew about the law (don't know if it applies in the specific case discussed in the thread, obviously) tends to mean you don't want to pay for it.
The tenants, on the other hand, clearly want their own money back, so unless it started as a scheme from their part, they might have tried to blackmail (?) for a part of the money (again just theorizing, doesn't mean it applies to this particular case of which I know not what went on).
The more crucial aspect here, however, is that I read the court can impose an "unlimited" fine in cases where it finds you deliberately didn't take a license. Sounds ominous.

Here is one of the articles I read (this one is about Manchester, but I suppose similar apply elsewhere in the UK or at least England)

Failure to apply for a licence | Houses in multiple occupation (HMO) | Manchester City Council

Information about houses with multiple occupation that need to be licensed

www.manchester.gov.uk

1100 pounds is roughly 1270 US dollars.

 

[Takhisis]

Maybe you should limit your publically available ‘I admit…’s to after the court case as well?

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe you should limit your publically available ‘I admit…’s to after the court case as well?

Goes without saying.
It'd be a shame if someone screencapped (allegedly) incriminating evidence

 

[Samson]

The current boogeyman of the month when it comes to unhealthy food is "ultra-processed foods". The BMJ has two research articles and an editorial about it.

The issue I have is with the definition. They use the NOVA food classification system, which defines ultra-processed foods as:

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable).​

​

The BMJ says:

This food group includes soft drinks; packaged snacks; commercial breads, cakes, and biscuits; confectionery; sweetened breakfast “cereals”; sugared milk based and “fruit” drinks; margarine; and pre-processed ready-to-eat or heat products such as burgers, pastas, and pizzas.​

​

How can this really be a useful classification for the healthyness of food? When you are grouping Coca-Cola in the same class as spaghetti is this actually a useful system?

My personal opinion, which is somewhat examined by this article, is that there are basically two things going on: Any processing, or just food being dead for extended periods of time, reduces certain nutrients, particularly the anti-oxidants such as vitamins C and E; and that some particular added ingredients, particularly nitrates, are particularly bad. Trying to merge these two concepts, that can be addressed seperatly, into a broad category of "ultra-processed foods" that includes such a wide range of foodstuffs does not help anyone. When you then use that category as the primary independant variable in a population study I am far for certain that you can get any useful information out.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just ate a frozen, microwavable egg. Is it as good as a fresh egg? No. But I don't happen to have any fresh eggs. Somehow I think I'll survive.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wait a couple months and so long as they don't manage to write any bad legislation, they'll move on.

 

[Synobun]

My digestive system is in shambles and has been for quite some time. There is a noticeable difference in how my body responds between the simple, "organic," natural foods and the ultra-processed things. This kind of stuff is likely meaningless to a healthy person, but for someone like me it is rather impactful.

 

[Samson]

My digestive system is in shambles and has been for quite some time. There is a noticeable difference in how my body responds between the simple, "organic," natural foods and the ultra-processed things. This kind of stuff is likely meaningless to a healthy person, but for someone like me it is rather impactful.

I am not denying that different foods have big differences, and these impact health. I eat what most people would consider a weird diet because I think it is better for me and my digestion. I am arguing that the definition "ultra processed" does not really capture what is going on. Unless Coco-cola, spaghetti and margarine all affect your digestion similarly then I suspect you agree with me.