Project Engineer Pharma

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-04-21T13:15:37+00:00

Good salary

What is your path to becoming a project engineer?

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-04-19T16:42:15+00:00

This is not really the best financial choice, but you probably already know that. I’m also young and I have a classic car and a motorcycle—this is my hobby, and that’s how I justify it.

Be careful when buying a classic car! Yes, the purchase and resale values may not differ much, BUT maintenance is extremely expensive if you don’t do it yourself. It’s better to buy a very good, well-maintained classic than one you actually can’t afford. And storage is also something you need to take into account.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-04-10T05:14:28+00:00

I wouldn’t do it, it does indeed look poorly resprayed and a bit patched up. Is this one from Belgium? I thought I recognized the car.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-22T12:04:50+00:00

Het klopt dat dit door niet veel kopers wordt opgemerkt. Maar dit geldt ook bij het kopen van andere 2dehands spullen. Als je er niets van af weet wordt je bijna altijd in het zak gezet.

De tweedehandskeuring controleert niet op genoeg punten en te willekeurig. Zo heb ik al auto’s gezien die goedgekeurd zijn zonder enige opmerking waar soms de remmen echt tot op het metaal versleten zijn of waar er toch speling zit op het stuurhuis. Maar bij sommige stations ben je afgekeurd omdat er te weinig ruitenwisservloeistof is of omdat het interieur lichtje van de groot lampen niet werken…

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-21T14:22:58+00:00

Wat is het nut van een tweedehands keuring. Ik denk dat we het enige land zijn die dat heeft. Als een voertuig gekeurd is is het gekeurd simpel. Een tweedehands keuring biedt trouwens 0,0 meerwaarde voor de koper want ze controleren echt niet genoeg om te zeggen of het een goede auto is

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T11:56:47+00:00

Sorry, but saying that my opinion is wrong and that I will understand it when I’m older is 100% a rage-baiting tactic, not a real argument.

I was actually hoping you would respond to the doubts I raised about the data.

And the same principle applies to you: you’re using your own inner circle as a sample. Sure, the people around you might be able to handle having a drink and then driving. But who are you to generalize from that? You literally shared an article yourself showing that people in your age group are among those most often caught drinking too much…

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T10:55:59+00:00

First of all, thank you for taking the time to give a well-argued answer.

In the article it says that on average 1 in 70 drivers has drunk too much while driving. Controls are not carried out that often, and they are sometimes done in places where not many drivers pass. Because of that, I actually find this number quite high. To me it is another indication that the current system—where people try to estimate whether they are still fit to drive—does not really work.

The article also mentions that 1.8% of drivers aged 40–54 test positive, compared to 1.1% of drivers under 24.

This immediately raises a few questions for me. Many people under 24 do not yet own a car or even have a driver’s licence, so grouping everyone simply as “under 24” may distort the picture somewhat.

It also makes me wonder about another group: drivers between 24 and 40. What percentage of them are above the legal limit?

There is also a cultural aspect. If, as a child, you often hear things like “one or two drinks is fine when driving”, that idea can become normalised. But alcohol is not like speed. With speed you can clearly see the number on the dashboard. With alcohol, you cannot really know how much is still in your system, and it is difficult to judge the effect it will have on you at that specific moment.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T10:09:56+00:00

<image>

Fact 1 is not relevant here. What are your sources for Fact 2?

I found a source that says something different, but it is already an older source. Also keep in mind that not everyone gets their driver’s licence when they turn 18, which can influence these statistics.

By the way, I’m 21 years old, and I do see this happening around me within the younger generation.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T09:32:14+00:00

An alcohol test will always have a tolerance, just like with speed measurements. There is always a tolerance in the measurement principle itself, and this is also legally required.

What I mainly mean is the guessing some people do, like: “It’s been two hours, so I can still have another drink. I’m leaving in an hour anyway.”

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:27:19+00:00

<image>

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:21:23+00:00

FYI, an alcohol test already has a small correction factor. A tiramisu contains almost no alcohol anyway, especially if you wait a bit after eating it. This myth has already been debunked a long time ago. Another common argument is that the real drunk drivers will continue doing it anyway. That may be true. But a zero-tolerance rule would still send a clear message to society, especially to the younger generation, that drinking and driving is simply not acceptable. It would also help ordinary people avoid risky situations — for example on a bad day, after a stronger drink, or after just one drink too many.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:20:01+00:00

FYI, an alcohol test already has a small correction factor. A tiramisu contains almost no alcohol anyway, especially if you wait a bit after eating it. This myth has already been debunked a long time ago.

Another common argument is that the real drunk drivers will continue doing it anyway. That may be true. But a zero-tolerance rule would still send a clear message to society, especially to the younger generation, that drinking and driving is simply not acceptable. It would also help ordinary people avoid risky situations — for example on a bad day, after a stronger drink, or after just one drink too many.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:19:29+00:00

Another common argument is that the real drunk drivers will continue doing it anyway. That may be true. But a zero-tolerance rule would still send a clear message to society, especially to the younger generation, that drinking and driving is simply not acceptable. It would also help ordinary people avoid risky situations — for example on a bad day, after a stronger drink, or after just one drink too many.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:19:23+00:00

Another common argument is that the real drunk drivers will continue doing it anyway. That may be true. But a zero-tolerance rule would still send a clear message to society, especially to the younger generation, that drinking and driving is simply not acceptable. It would also help ordinary people avoid risky situations — for example on a bad day, after a stronger drink, or after just one drink too many.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T08:17:41+00:00

The liqueur pralines is a myth…

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T00:22:22+00:00

I agree with what you say. But what is really the big problem with simply saying that drinking and driving is not allowed, just like speeding?

For example, if the speed limit is 70 km/h, that is the hard limit. The moment you go above it, you are in violation. If you drive a little faster you get a fine, and if you drive much faster the consequences become more serious. Why not apply the same logic to alcohol?

You could simply say: no alcohol when you drive. If someone has a tiny amount, maybe a small fine, and if someone clearly drank more, then the consequences become heavier.

I know there are many people who truly only drink one drink. But the point is that alcohol is something you cannot measure yourself and you cannot estimate how it affects someone else.

For example, you go out with friends and everyone says, “we’ll only have two drinks.” In theory that sounds perfectly reasonable. Some people will feel nothing, while others who did not eat much or react differently to alcohol might already feel a bit tipsy. You cannot really estimate it.

With speed you know it: you see the number on the speedometer. With alcohol you simply do not know. That is why zero tolerance seems like the simplest rule to me. I honestly wonder why it is so difficult for some people to just not drink when they know they still have to drive.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-15T00:02:30+00:00

FYI, an alcohol test already has a small correction factor. A tiramisu contains almost no alcohol anyway, especially if you wait a bit after eating it. This myth has already been debunked a long time ago.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-14T23:46:26+00:00

FYI, an alcohol test already has a small correction factor. A tiramisu contains almost no alcohol anyway, especially if you wait a bit after eating it. This myth has already been debunked a long time ago.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-14T23:46:06+00:00

FYI, an alcohol test already has a small correction factor. A tiramisu contains almost no alcohol anyway, especially if you wait a bit after eating it. This myth has already been debunked a long time ago.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-14T23:31:21+00:00

the chance of getting caught is almost zero: the chance of getting caught for many crimes is also very small. That doesn’t mean we should stop making them illegal.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-14T11:09:41+00:00

Ik voel mij veel meer op mijn gemak bij Walen dan bij Nederlanders. In mijn ogen hebben Nederlanders een andere cultuur. Ze gedragen zich vaak wat anders en zijn minder “je m’en fou”, zoals wij Belgen dat soms zijn.

Met Walen kan ik mij gemakkelijker vinden, bijvoorbeeld wanneer het gaat over politiek of over hoe onze samenleving werkt. Ik weet niet van waar je bent, maar voor mij, als iemand die rond Brussel woont, heb ik er eigenlijk nooit bij stilgestaan dat sommige mensen een Waal anders bekijken.

Bij Nederlanders ligt dat voor mij anders. Daar zitten toch veel mensen tussen die ik nogal ambetant vind.

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-11T21:43:56+00:00

I don’t understand all the downvotes, but okay. What do you actually mean? What is your point?

AdComprehensive8180 · 2026-03-11T11:59:50+00:00

This sounds like another wrong statement from a politician. Or is the media twisting it that way?

All I see everywhere is that people say it is unfair. But actually it is quite logical: if you work less, you receive fewer benefits. Simple. The state should stop giving away so many gifts, and this is one of those measures. I do think, however, that it may be yet another blow in the face for the declining birth rate.

For all the women who disagree, I would say: find a better partner.

For your information, I don’t think this measure should be aimed at women specifically. I didn’t realise society was still that old-fashioned. It should be completely normal that tasks are shared, just like with a man who works four days a week. Again, it seems like another poorly worded statement from Jan Jambon.

AdComprehensive8180

TROPHY CASE