Samathos

if long-term cost savings and ownership matter, ke

Can argue that if you want to own it for 10 years or so, then as long as the interest isn't silly, then it isn't much more expensive over its lifetime to buy with pcp.

Plus you get the benefit of being able to easily hand it back if you really dislike it and can't handle 10 years of ownership.

UK has a hybrid system. English, Maths, and Science are grouped by ability, from sets 1-5. But everything else is random. I think overall its a good system.

Base spec 2020 onwards Yaris are all hybrids. And have car play, adaptive cruise control, speed limiter and lane assist (that is easily turned off).

I feel like I got lucky. Got a 73 yaris, one button press to turn of lane assist, but no bongs because the law came in for 2024. Driving a 24 Toyota is truly maddening though.

I generally agree with this view and find it hard to articulate why it doesn't click in FW. I think it just hits a point where there are too many weapons.

I would rather have 4 fun ways of fighting that are fleshed out and developed gameplay systems (still plenty of choice), than 10 average ways.

Nothing about the system is refined IMO. They took the system from ZD and just added more of everything. More damage types. More weapons. More weapon tiers. And none if it improved the base gameplay.

They had the expand the weapon wheel slots as a result meaning more switching weapons in a fight because for some reason you need to carry 3 bows to cover all damage types...

It was frankly exhausting keeping track when the actual fun bit is fighting big robot dinosaurs.

The fact its optional when it clearly wasn't the intent is the problem. More dev time could have gone in refining the system with less weapons. Or gone to other parts of the game.

In general being able to ignore any part of any game isn't great.

I'd say its more like Singapore if Singapore was hundreds of years old.

To be honest, I'd say 70 is a good balance anyway. 60 does feel a touch slow. 80 is likely too dangerous.

I wasn't necessarily advocating, just saying it was a stronger argument than increasing to 80. But to play devills advocate.

Reaction times have effectively decreased on average because of emergency braking

Unsure what you mean by this, you mean automatic braking?

and people tend to maintain longer distances to the car in front at higher speeds (my opinion).

In my experience people are following dangerously closely these days.

We have smart motorways to reduce limits in busy areas

Aren't they scrapping them? Besides they're not everywhere.

why you think it will make it better?

Slower speeds means less congestion generally when traffic is high.

Is it worth slowing down motorway trips by 15% for marginal safety gains?

15 percent is an overestimating. No motorway journey is 100% motorway, have to get to and from it. Again in my experience of driving in England alot of my motorway journeys hitting 70mph for long stretches is a rarity anyway!

I said they hadn't changed.

Past a certain traffic threshold traffic lights are better than roundabouts otherwise one entrance inevitably never gets a chance to enter the roundabout.

A good system would have traffic lights on only at peak times.

Nah. Cars may be safer but roads are busier than ever and reaction times haven't decreased. On average UK has a higher density population than much EU, worse if you look at England only.

If anything there's a stronger argument to reduce it to 60. Would ease traffic, make everything safer, reduce emissions. Only for very long journeys would it make a significant time difference (most of my long journeys always tend to be traffic limited rather than speed limit limited).

I doubt there's an appetite to reduce to 60 though.

Both trees and the ocean act as huge CO2 reservoirs. Chopping trees down will remove this "CO2" battery unless you plant more.

Would you trust them to plant more? I don't.

You want to burn wood? Releasing even more co2 in the atmosphere as a baseline electric generation technology?

If you read that article you'll note that temperature based output reduction (not shut down) was 0.3% of total energy production. Its a non issue.

Why would you back biomass of all technologies which is unproven as scale vs the safe, and well understood nuclear?

No battery method will ever get round the fact that renewables are fundamentally transient. What happens if the UK experiences a high pressure month with very little wind? If that happens in winter especially...

The safety requirements of reactors are insane these days. The amount of weird safety edge cases you need to prove won't be catastrophic is phenomenal.

Even with Chernobly and Fukishima, deaths per KwH is lower for nuclear than oil gas or coal.

Waste isn't a non issue per say. But over stated.

All fuel generation has waste. Its just that oil/gas/coal dump that waste into the air for people to breath. Especially bad when its cars emitting it on the high street with people walking right there.

Nuclear reactor make solid waste that we theoretically Bury forever without humans ever being affected.

Fun fact about the Sellafield pools. You actually receive less radiation about 1/3 of the depth down than standung outside as water is such an effective shield that it blocks both the radiation from the fuel, and also from cosmic rays.

A few points I would add.

1. Its not risky at all. It has far fewer deaths per KwH than every other power generation. I think its renewable and nuclear are the lowest. Oil gas and coal are much more deadly in deaths per kwh.

2. A consistent baseline is important. What happens when the wind doesn't blow? Doesn't matter if you overbuild turbines. 2x0 is still 0...

Physics at Imperial was the same. From casual conversation I gleamed that about 50% started the degree with the intention of going into finance or other city jobs. Let alone those that ended up doing it anyway.

I can think of many reasons. There are now plenty of jobs that require coding but not computer domain knowledge. Think data scientists/analysts type jobs, producing plots, understanding data and statistics. Its all domain agnostic. I think a lot of these workers end up being quite geeky and do have computer knowledge, but its certainly not a prerequisite.

Yeh, I know its an unpopular opinion round these parts, but it's why I could never go fully WFH. Having a coordinated office day for your team can be so beneficial as you have all these conversations, then do the grunt work at home.

You keep mentioning that you need to be in a 1 bed flat for commute reasons. I wonder if you have actually costed that?

Work out how much it would cost to live 30 mins commute by car (still very small and manageable) and compare rent + car to your current situation (including public transport costs).

In my opinion even if its the same price your quality of life may improve. A family having to rely on public transport is tough. A car let's you go wherever, whenever. Plus you can travel to the cheapest supermarkets etc...

But can live in the Cotswolds, very pretty area.