gundog48

Fucking hell thought you were talking about us for a sec until you mentioned the sign! One of our walls has been 'eroded' by years of schoolkids so decided to just take that part down!  I'd be frustrated if someone parked there just because there's almost always much better places to park, but wouldn't complain if they did, even though I'd be blocked in, they've still got every right to park there, it's just be silly 99.9% of the time! 

So, I'd argue that something like taking out an ad encouraging people to take tests routinely when they have no symptoms is unproductive and kinda predatory. Especially as it could be sold as being 'responsible' which implies it's irresponsible not to. So I wouldn't be opposed to restrictions on how services like this are advertised, beyond current trading standards. But, I think these services should be available to anyone willing to pay. Actually restricting the services or forcing the need for some kind of 'valid reason' would do more harm than good and just brings back the exact issue that people have with GPs that these services can mitigate. Fundamentally I don't think it's right to deny people the ability to investigate their own bodies in such a harmless way, I make use of these services regularly as I'm on HRT, others use them to investigate symptoms their GP is unwilling to investigate, there's many instances where these services are valuable and I think trying to restrict access will do way more harm than good. The important thing to me is responsible messaging, there's a fine line between offering services like these and going after the 'already healthy' market by preying on anxieties.

That's fair and I did have that in mind reading your comment. I broadly agree that doing blood tests 'out of curiosity' isn't worthwhile, and I'd hope that they'd be treated by the GP as a single data point. If there are no related symptoms where there 'should' be, I'd expect most GPs would make a note and not recommend any action. The issue to me really is that restricting who can get a test like this will effect everyone using these tests and introduce similar problems with gatekeeping, and is likely would introduce more problems than it will solve. Although I've not encountered it, I do disagree with advertising these services as 'MOT's that should be done routinely/out of curiosity and would support banning that practice. It's more that I think that people shouldn't be denied access to tools to investigate their own health, even if it's not appropriate for many people who seek them out.

Strongly disagree. For example, I'm trans. NHS treatment is appalling bordering on dangerous at times, as the patient, you have to take a lot of responsibility for the quality of your care. Part of that are getting hormone tests done, which the NHS simply don't bother doing, even though it is the most important indicator of effective dosing, and not checking them is broadly considered irresponsible. This is probably a more unusual case where they are happy to take the results at face value and let it inform dosing. If you don't advocate for yourself like this, it is very common for people to be dangerously underdosed and for nobody to be aware of it. Sure that's an edge case, but GPs are generally very reluctant to investigate conditions that don't present a clear picture. Yes there are false positives in any testing, but that's a bad reason not to do it imo. GPs are not expected to take the results at face value and start chopping bits out of you. I imagine the first follow-up would be to do another harmless blood test to confirm the results, then choose what's appropriate. Your comments pretty much ignore the ethical issues of underinvestigation by GPs, especially for those with less externally-obvious symptoms, and you kinda assume that all these are false positives or unnecessary. Doctors are good at interpreting results and deciding on the best course of action. The difficulty is getting to that point. I think the idea that a routine blood test is going to be more harmful than ignoring issues is pretty flawed. I only really take issue that you think it 'shouldn't be allowed', that would certainly be a big issue for me and a lot of others, and deliberately puts people more at the mercy of referral gatekeepers.

I'd hardly call it 'reckless'. The test itself doesn't incur any risk to the patient. Under-investigation is extremely common and can be just as reckless. Patients are often aware that something is wrong, but aren't able or qualified to identify it, and GPs are often reluctant to investigate anything apart from the more obvious and immidiate. I don't think that getting a blood test is an unreasonable course of action from a patient in that scenario to try and narrow things down and see if anything warrants further investigation. If certain numbers are abnormal, and could be related to your symptoms, that gives you a place to start. I'd expect that in such scenarios, it would be sensible for the GP to order a blood test to confirm the results. If they're still abnormal, it absolutely warrants investigation, but confirming the results only requires a safe and routine blood test which seems reasonable and proportional. Yeah, there's false positives in any kind of testing. Most people taking them aren't just doing it for the sake of it, they do it because they have a reason to, and the alternative is very often the GP doing nothing to resolve it. When an issue is actually known, then doctors can make reasonable decisions on interventions and balancing risks, but getting to that point can be really difficult, and I don't think false positives are a reason not to investigate.

Yeah, had a big suitcase on a holiday to japan and just didn't trust the zip. They kinda overdo the wrapping a bit, but the tension it adds completely negates the risk of broken zips, tears, loose stuff catching on things.

Honestly I wouldn't in a million years expect my work to call the police because I wasn't contactable for one day, even without telling them. I get that for bigger companies this is likely a policy, and I understand the reasoning, it's actually quite nice knowing that someone is looking out for you, but that is still kinda wild to me and I wouldn't in a million years expect that outcome anywhere I've worked.

I'd approach the rugby boys with the issue. At least one of them is going to offer to help for enough alcohol to barely feel the sting. They will insist on doing it naked though, for some reason.

We were taught to shorten it like "sa'arnt" when I was at army. "Sarge" was punishable by NCOs taking the piss breaking into bad American WWII film impressions! 

Kinda thing where I'd be annoyed but consider it worth the cost. They'd turn the siren off if it wasn't that critical. Couldn't live with refusing to partially cross an 'imaginary' line when it's completely safe because I could get a fine potentially. I've partially or entirely crossed the line probably dozens of times and never had anything come of it. 

Yeah that is kinda weird to me, I don't really care what the highway code says so much as what is the most helpful thing to do on balance. I couldn't imagine not going over the line a bit to let an ambulance pass in situations where that doesn't increase risk. That said, one of the dumbest but most fun things I did was when I had 3 police cars behind me on a single carriageway A-road. Clear road in my direction, solid traffic the other, nowhere to pull over.  Not usually too fussed for police but they were in a real fucking hurry and clearly wanted to pass me, and it was a long straight road with a turnoff about a half a mile down. Stopping would have blocked everything.  I stuck my indicator on and did 75 in a 60 and dived into the turning when I reached it so they could pass. Definitely silly but by the way they were driving I could tell they wanted me to GTFO, so I did as quickly as I thought I could get away with. They were up my arse with sirens the whole while and I was checking the mirrors to see if they gave any indication they wanted me to slow down, but they were kinda looking past me the whole time.  For a few seconds, I got to feel like I was the target of a police chase! It was very situational and I wouldn't have done that under almost any other circumstances. 

If I'm at the front of a queue and the line is set back from the junction, I always pull forward and to the side as I have nowhere else to move, and feel like id just be obstructing you because of an imaginary wall. Thinking 2-lane one-way roads where everyone has to 'part'. 'Running a red' to the extent that I've gone over the white line, but am probably still touching it, and not entering a junction.  I couldn't imagine not doing that for an ambulance, is it really better to stay put? 

A way to sidestep this fundamental problem is to cheat and make use of radiant heaters. Tbh it's no way to live, but if you're mostly in one place, these can be good because they heat the person more directly, rather than relying on warming up the room itself. More like being in the sun than it actually being warm. The percieved warmth per watt is higher, but obviously has limitations. Still, useful in a drafty room or one that doesn't need to be warm all the time. You can shut the warm air in where its needed to some extent.

I feel like this won't be a particularly decent suppressor just going on the size and relative age. Wondering if it's just meant to hide the flash and deaden or redirect the sound or something? 

[Oh wow, a gun! I wonder if it's loaded?](http://i.imgur.com/m2peGo3.gif) You come in here ranting about gunshots, and service revolvers, I've had enough! Get out.

Probably means your grandma or great grandma used to have fun nights out!

This is just British localisation for "Go to Hell!"

I'd say it's mixed. Because it also kinda means "you are a (positive) sight, but I only because I'm currently in an undesirable situation"! Also, sometimes it can be used when the person in question is the cause of the 'sore eyes'. For example, if you're half an hour late to your shift and it's been really busy, the person who's been covering you might call you a "sight for sore eyes" which is a bit pointed, because you're saying "you're late and caused some grief, but glad you're finally here!". Usually it's meant as being pleased to see someone who is giving them relief in some way, but can be a bit accusatory in some situations.

We called it a 'doofer' too! Now I'm wondering about the etymology given there's at least half a dozen of us!

This aggression will not stand, man!

I WONDER IF ITS LOADED?!?

Not even that, you find an SMG in a black bag on the street and you know that's some heavy shit, especially in the UK, somebody is looking for it, or was about to pick it up either to use it or as a drop or something. Pretty funny what you could set off by just yoinking it, but chances are somebody's gonna come dunk your head in a toilet and piss on your rug wanting their death bag back.

I don't know why anyone would buy an iPhone. This is just insane. Like at some point people have got to see that this is just fucked

recoilful rifle

Yeah, this is kinda where I'm at. Me and my partner never argue, but whenever we disagree, she kinda just runs from the coversation. I'm going through a lot of change at the moment to say the least, it's hard on both of us, and puts quite a big question mark over the relationship in some ways, but she just won't talk about it. I try to talk about my feelings or start a conversation and I sometimes it gets completely stonewalled, it's like getting blood from a stone. She'll change the subject as quickly as possible, and even if something confonting comes up, she will *never* bring it up again. It's genuinely quite horrible and lonely, having to always be the one to start conversations that I don't particaly want to start either, and then keep things on that topic for more than a few mins. Makes things feel very insecure, counterintuitively. I'd be reassuring if she stood up for herself and what she wanted earnestly, even if it was a shouting argument. She's very much a the kind of person who 'chugs along' with things; work, family and our relationship. I respect her ability to do that, but sometimes for the life of me I can't understand what makes her tick, frankly I want better for her, imo, someone in her late 20's-early 30's shouldn't be saying 'it is what it is' with the frequency of an Aussie in his 50's.

My fucking gf is now like this. I'll speak from experience but she'll believe it once she's asked ChatGPT. Honestly breaks my heart a bit every time. 

We have top men working on it 

[waow](https://media1.tenor.com/m/qixXkSn0iU8AAAAd/waow-based.gif)

[You lacked the vitamin?](https://files.catbox.moe/ugek9r.png)

Perhaps, but also, I feel like all of these de-acts are going to be especially looked after by their owners. Yes we do lose something, but its now more 'stable' in its current form.

Wait until you pirate Solidworks and get a 'Notification of Intended Strike Package' from Dassault

I feel like the reality would make for a more interesting mechanic than most videogames where the strat is always to edge the minigun at all times on the cusp of the arbrirary RPM where it starts blasting. A gun with accelerating/decelerating firerate would be way more interesting and make it more situational but really effective in the right place!

You know what, people can do a lot more serious crimes, but usually, there's some kind of somewhat understandable simple or complex motivation. Like, I understand people being willing to screw people over for money if they want something, I understand the feelings that motivate violence and revenge, I understand crimes driven by addiction, even though none of these things excuse responsibility, you can usually understand the rationale, or at least acknowledge the circumstances that give rise to them are complex. There's usually a chain of logic and priorities, even if it's not yours, or is objectively immoral. With littering it's the sheer mindless disregard for their environment any anyone else around them, not thinking or caring how the effect others and the world around them. The only benefit to them is to not have to put it in a bin, which they'll probably be stopping next to at some point anyway. And we all have to deal with the concequences for the sake of *that*. I also regard flytippers as some of the lowest of the low. But I can at least follow the logic there, as in, it is reprehensible, but it's being done deliberately towards some kind of end, even if it's making money and putting 100% of that cost on society. Do you know what I mean? I think this is what makes me so mad about littering. It's utterly thoughtless. It's still passing the cost to society, but they literally don't get anything from it other than not having to keep it in their car for 10 mins, they literally don't even have to go out of their way. But instead, they'll make others go much, much further out of their way to hopefully collect most of it. It's an act that says "I literally do not give one singular shit about you or this place, I do not care what you think, I don't think of anyone else as an actual person, so pick up my shit for me if you want, simply carrying it is beneath me". That's all really fucking dramatic, but I do think that is what makes casual littering so infuriating compared to many more 'serious' things!

This is my propagandawerfer. It werfs propaganda.

I am so glad that something like this is able to exist. Good job people. This is an art piece really. It insists upon itself.

What is going on with the one in the last picture that looks like some kind of AK with a thumbhole stock with the grip about 3 feet back from the trigger? Do these people have yaoi hands?

I suppose I'd want a cigarette too if that was my job.

Jesus Christ it's John Fargo! That's insane, massive flex tbh.

Explain catboys. **Explain catboys!**

I think people see a slippery slope. You see the difference in how regulated things are in an older suburb outside of town, to living in a newer estate or closer to town, to having a flat in London. Obviously the vast majority of them have emerged as solutions to problems, but the experience of 'having a place' can be vastly different, and when you're used to one, the other can feel like a shock. People see in inevitable march toward ceding control of their lives to Student Union-tier politics and want the option to stay insulated. The thing is they take a thousand logical leaps rather than just realising that these systems are ultimately our best effort at addressing the complexities that arise as people live closer together, that is entirely optional. It may well not be for them, but it should be obvious that nobody will make them. Then they may actually realise that they live in or idolise a suburb or village with shops, amenities, a train station, etc, all within walking distance. If they didn't work in the village, they'd want to work remotely. That village probably has a lot of bylaws about cars and parking around the green for reasons that make sense to them and because the old narrow road isn't suitable for through-traffic or whatever. And if you want to live on a new build estate with no shops or anything and you need to walk 20 mins just to leave and drive to the supermarket every time, you still bloody can, and you'll probably be cursing the 1.5 parking spaces/house limit the council mandated but nobody is talking about putting a bus stop in. I can see the fear, though. Our government has given us lots of reasons not to trust them, and I think there's a real fear that the kind of 'do you really need x' mentality we often have will ultimately lead to further regulation when you're more dependent on them. I can understand why you wouldn't want to live in one out of preference, and I can even see why someone might be sceptical of moving somewhere that feels like a 'project' that may feel sterile and will have a lot of regulation and added potential for more. I am very sceptical of authority in general, so I'm imagining all the levels of autocracy from the building owner, housing association, council, and all sorts of HOA-type stuff. Never underestimate the ability of people to take 20 logical steps from the point and argue against an idea they probably like. Back when the smoking ban in pubs was a hot topic, lots of people were against it who hated smoking, because "they'll come for alcohol next". I still kinda think that when a complete ban is discussed. The problem is the basic assumption that there is some mundanely evil 'they' who want to make everyone miserable, 'they' are just a whole bunch of 'you' who are freaking out about different things, and occasionally agree on enough to try and fix a problem. Like, why do this? How could they do this? Who's going to agree to it and enforce it, how is it going to be kept secret and why? Of course it sounds like a marxist hell to you, Geraldine, your cottage has a name and your nearest neighbours are 15 min walks in any direction and all pubs. Realising that driving a tractor doesn't exempt you from drink-driving rules is seen an an overreach. But you can still appreciate being able to access things, so you can understand what the goal is, but the army isn't going to drag you there, and what would that even achieve?

Watch out for those wrist rockets!

Such an incredible collection! If they ran this as a museum and let you handle some of them, I could easily spend all day there!

Supermarkets put sweets and chocolate by the till, gun shops have PSGs!

Recommend Matt Easton of Eason Antique Arms! 

I'm visiting in a couple of weeks, both Tokyo and Osaka. I'd love to stop by, but it would be a museum visit for me as I can't exactly put one in my suitcase for the flight back! I'm really interested in just looking, I'd pay to look around, but don't want to impose on them with no ability to buy anything. What's your thoughts on this? It looks like a place I could spend all day, but I don't want to be disrespectful.

Rolled one of these over once on an icy road down a hill, these bois are pretty top-heavy, sustained fire would probably tip it right over! I shit you not, 4 of us pushed it back over, I drove it to work and clocked in! Bolted on a land rover wing mirror, bashed the frame until the door worked again, rounded off the edges with a hammer, I drove it for a year after that, even passed an MOT inspection!

Actually contacting them won't help. She will need to actually explain the situation to them.

But you best believe I'm cutting a 126cm length of 4x2!

May be slightly difficult to get past a firearms officer, though? (To the non-Brits) They're not very rigid, but you do need to have a 'reason' to own the kinds of firearms you do. For example, if you want a rifle in order to shoot small game on your land, you'd struggle to justify having a rifle like the one above in order to do it. If you're using it to shoot at a club, pretty much anything goes. But I'm not sure where a semi-auto shotgun would fit, because I'm not sure it would be appropriate for most ranges, but also, kinda ridiculous for hunting, unless you planned on ruining a pheasant shoot! Perhaps for land management you could argue the utility of a semi-auto for shooting rats and such where quick follow-ups would help. Presumably for kicking in the barn door and sweeping the floor before they scurry!

Surely things like that already fall under trading standards rules? Probably file a complaint when they are making clearly impossible claims to sell their product.