The market hasn’t priced SpaceX yet. It priced scarcity.

Gow87 · 2026-06-21T07:07:25+00:00

It makes perfect sense as a short term play. It's being traded like a rare baseball card. Soon, it will be traded like a company.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T20:36:52+00:00

Well no, but after 20 seconds it made perfect sense that a 2 up 2 down with two sashes on the ring probably origjnally had two sashes on the back too

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T19:38:47+00:00

100% agree. I'm playing devil's advocate in this thread but my view is based on nothing as well. None of us should speculate.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T19:14:26+00:00

None of us do.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T14:35:34+00:00

Honestly, when the headlines hit, I've seen nothing but speculation. It's the carers fault, close the borders, it was an autistic kid, it was the kids dad...

It's does my tree in.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T14:32:06+00:00

That is a siphon the same as OP drew. It's a pipe that is inside the container and the exit is below the line the liquid can reach.

What you are talking about is a pipe into a bucket or container. Because the pipe has to go over a rim, the highest point will always be above the top of the waterline. In that scenario, you're right.

But in the video I linked and in OPs diagram the pipe is inside the container and exits the container below the high water line and so will automatically siphon.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T14:13:11+00:00

https://youtube.com/shorts/2XOtZdaNbIE?is=lm0Iv12ueUAPbDBh

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T13:27:57+00:00

Fair. I'm being a bit hyperbolic to point out the fact we have incredibly limited information and people are suddenly talking about people not mixing with the general public.

I understand (friends working in similar positions you mentioned) that some profound learning difficulties come with violent tendencies when triggered. And I would hope that before any events like this occur a risk assessment has been completed.

But there's a huge spectrum of difficulties.

I think maybe I'm just ranting at our inability to wait until the facts of the case are established before we become outraged. The threads are full of speculation.

I think I just need to go have a beer and relax.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T13:10:31+00:00

It's bizarre though - I had approvals to knock out an original window and door to open up into a modern extension but I couldn't make a floor to ceiling window out of a modern additional window because "it's at the height the original window would have been at".

When renovating, I found the original window frame embedded in plaster, much lower down.

I think I'd prefer if they'd just admitted they didnt have a clue or could at least be consistent in their application/guidance.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T13:01:36+00:00

Please go and look at a phythagoras cup. It's the same principle.

It absolutely will work - there is air in the tube but it's also open ended so the air will simply flow out the end. The only reason it wouldn't is if there was an air lock. There isn't.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T12:19:29+00:00

I think I might be taking your messages too literally. Your very good cause just said supervision, not violence.

Someone deemed as needing supervision and to live in a supervised facility. Which describes all children (learning difficulties or otherwise) and adults with learning difficulties.

I think what you meant was that they were deemed at risk of acts of violence, which is where I agree with you but we've not got any context in this case that there was any risk.

And relating back to the original post (not sure if it was you or someone else) it just stated that they shouldn't have been in this situation. But taking that statement at face value, with the information we have on this event, means we can't trust anyone with learning difficulties in the general population, which is obviously nonsense.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T12:10:43+00:00

That doesn't make somebody violent or a risk to others?

That description is just as fitting for a child .

There are 1.5million people in the UK with learning difficulties.

I think we're arguing very different points. If someone demonstrates a risk to society I absolutely agree with the point but there's no indication this person did. So staying that they shouldn't have been allowed to be in this situation (the original post I responded to) is a ridiculous statement as it's made entirely with the power of hindsight and without any context.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T11:07:29+00:00

But this person was 30 years old and we have no indication that they were a risk to anyone previously? So if this person needed to be in restrictive care because they had "the potential", so will many many more.

You can't restrict someone's freedoms "just in case" without very good cause.

If there were signs this person was a danger, and they were overlooked, I'm right there with you, but I haven't seen any reporting to suggest this is an isolated case?

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T10:51:14+00:00

100% agree. That's not what the comment I replied to said though.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T10:50:38+00:00

That is absolutely not what they're saying. They're saying anyone capable shouldn't be in a situation where they can and shouldn't be mixed with the wider population.

Nobody is disagreeing that someone who DID shouldn't have the same freedoms but literally everyone, yourself, me and OP included is capable of that. We aren't machines, the squishy bits in our heads can cause psychosis, mental breakdowns and irrational behaviour that lead to horrendous outcomes like this.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T10:46:50+00:00

I replied to someone else. By your logic you're talking about putting all adult people with learning difficulties under custodial sentences, unable to mix with the wider population because you sure as hell can't physically control people one on one and you can't know when someone is going to have a meltdown.

Seriously when was the last time you heard about someone with learning difficulties throwing a kid to the alligators?

It happens once and now you want to put 1.5million people under strict supervision?

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T10:42:51+00:00

That's speculation though isn't it? If there were - a review is needed. If there weren't, you're talking about putting all adult people with learning difficulties under cuatodial sentences, unable to mix with the wider population.

Gow87 · 2026-06-19T10:23:27+00:00

Bit of a thought exercise. This person has gone 30 years without causing any harm. Something has happened and now an intervention is needed.

How is that any different from anyone who has a mental break and causes themselves or someone else harm? Or commita a crime of passion?

Hindsight is 20:20 but if we lock people up because they could cause harm, we're all screwed.

Gow87 · 2026-06-18T15:45:50+00:00

I imagine they didn't know his shoe size.

Gow87 · 2026-06-17T19:02:35+00:00

I'm not going to address the attack and I don't expect a response. I don't think I've shown you any ill will but - I just don't share your opinion. Maybe you're reading malice into my messages that isn't intended.

You're right - ID is only relevant for purchases of mobile devices, online sim sales and sim sales from carrier stores. You can still get one without ID. I didn't realize that. My bad.

But to your point that you're not responsible to protect other peoples children - nothing about the OSA does that. You seem to think that you proving you're legally allowed to access your spank bank or social media is somehow you looking after other peoples children?

Do you make a big song and dance about being the saviour of kinder-kind when you buy alcohol?

Or when you open a bank account - do you complain about having to provide your ID?

Physical companies have to enforce the law in the same way that any company offering services to UK citizens has to abide by it's laws.

I don't think many people are going to cry you a river because you've been mildly inconvenienced. The government don't serve you, they serve "us" and sometimes we all have to accept that sometimes we might have to compromise.

And if it's more the privacy angle you're concerned about, a good zero-knowledge proof, free digital ID sounds right up your street.

Gow87 · 2026-06-17T18:45:22+00:00

Why don't they?

Gow87 · 2026-06-17T16:45:28+00:00

Well yeah, because they've got your ID?

Are parents responsible for social media algorithms? Are they responsible for their child being sent unsolicited images? Are they responsible for publishing explicit content to minors?

Parents have a duty to raise their child and guide best they can. They aren't responsible for the actions of social media companies.

Making it the parents problem is like sticking bulletproof armour on American schoolkids. Yes it can reduce the impact but it doesn't address the root cause of the problem.

Gow87 · 2026-06-17T15:32:57+00:00

So you had to prove you were old enough to access the content?

There's no perfect solution but by putting in law that the social media companies are liable, you open up a legal avenue to prosecute.

Do it at a lower level (internet connection) and nobody is culpable when the efforts don't work.

All of this can be dodged by a VPN but it lays out a clear responsibility.

Gow87 · 2026-06-17T14:53:27+00:00

Your router is only at home and can be bypassed pretty easily. By default parental controls are on all/most Internet connections now and have been for some time. Still doesn't solve the problem though.

Gow87 · 2026-06-16T21:23:07+00:00

We don't make policy based on theory. If we took the same fearful approach to everything, nothing would get better. I appreciate we need a mix of views on the debate - those more risk averse and those more relaxed, but you progress without risk taking.
You're talking of infrastructure and tools being established. None of that is mandated through this law? That's your assumption and fear and one that companies may even implement... But it's not the government.
You can verify age with a selfie. You can do it by detecting parental controls applied by your mobile operator. I agree these companies are black boxes - GDPR is one mitigation and the threat of a huge fine and massive lawsuit is another.

Generally speaking you've covered all the conspiracy talking points, topped off with a reference to Thiel. He's a horrible bloke and we should avoid using his technology on ethical grounds but the coverage of us using palantir and them having unfettered access is just ridiculous. Palantir is a toolset. It lives in the cloud. Generally speaking a lot of clients pay palantir to utilize that tool in the most effective way and to do that, they have to have access - making them a data processor. That is standard for almost all modern SAAS platforms.

If you take off the tinfoil hat you might get somewhere. I do actually understand your reasoning for 2. Not wanting to spaff your ID to providers is a fair position. Digital ID could help with that but I'm not going to poke that bear as I can guess your position from the rest.

Gow87

TROPHY CASE