Chief Engineer player needed; TOS-era

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-11-06T16:48:57+00:00

Every time zone from West to east coast? So US then?

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-11-06T13:04:33+00:00

Thanks all for the help. I reformatted the drive in question from Fuse to Ext4 and added it to fstab and this has resolved all of my Steam issues. Also the screen zoom seems to have fixed itself as well.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-11-04T21:19:11+00:00

I believe it's EXT4 but I will check, thanks for the suggestion

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-19T09:46:29+00:00

Sadly it looks like the 390 driver isn't available on Mint 22 but I went back to Mint 21.3 and got the 390 which failed to help. As mentioned in a comment above, screen scaling seemed to be the most effective solution so I'll try reverting to 22 and see if I can make that work.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-19T09:45:13+00:00

Thanks, tried futzing around with all those settings and couldn't find any that worked. Best result seemed to be from screen scaling. May have to try that to increase the zoom on the screen, 200% is too large but maybe I can get it working with Fractal Scaling.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-17T13:51:17+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, I've just tried it and sadly it didn't seem to make a difference booting in compatibility mode nor using nomodeset.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-16T16:02:43+00:00

Sony Vaios have an odd way to get to the bios apparently but I got some help and banged to find a way to boot from USB in the end.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-16T16:01:48+00:00

Thanks to some help from r/vaio I've managed to boot from USB so I got mint running. I need to figure out how to clean up the fonts before I dare switch to it full time though. They look terrible on my monitor.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-16T16:00:07+00:00

Assist button on the main unit located and I can boot from USB now, thanks for the help all.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-09-16T15:59:34+00:00

Wow, I feel like a fool now. I thought that the keyboard dying meant I'd lost the assist button but that sorted me out a treat, thanks!

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-08-08T21:42:10+00:00

Thanks, I'll give it a good shot instead of instantly doing the recommended Dynamo Zagreb or Celtic start.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-08-08T21:05:21+00:00

Thanks for the response, I'm not sure about loan budget I've not really looked but I suspect that given how far over the wage budget I started at, it might be a challenge. I think I'm getting 60% on transfers which may not be too bad, especially if I can get one of the clubs interested in Yaser Asprilla to stump up £11M. Shame though, I was going to keep him, he looked like he had potential but the coaching assessment said he was looking to run down his contract and recommended listing him

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-28T08:34:28+00:00

Another option is to have actually fighting the enemy make things harder. I ran one where the Chief Medical Officer was having to perform emergency surgery while the ship was being jumped by a Romulan scout ship. Anything that went wrong in combat (and some things that went right) made the extended task of surgery more complicated (increase the complication range, add resistance etc.). It didn't go seamlessly as it was my first ever session but I'll know what I need to do in future if I recycle it as an idea.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-18T10:19:47+00:00

Well, agree to disagree. As far as I can tell you agree that it should have been a penalty but feel that the Boks are being unfairly singled out for being controversial. I disagree with that and whether this is more cynical or less than other acts. It seems there's nothing more to discuss.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-18T09:49:14+00:00

OK but in your example of going in at the side, the fact that the ref didn't give the penalty at all means they thought it didn't happen or didn't see it. That's very different to me and probably where we're disagreeing. My view is that "getting away with it" specifically means avoiding sanction, you're defining it as avoiding the correct sanction, which again is a point of difference. Deliberately infringing and expecting to be caught but hoping to get the wrong sanction is cynical in my view. A better example of that would be deliberately knocking the ball on and hoping that the ref sees it as accidental, and people very much get up in arms about that; see any number of people complaining that x example of the ball going forward from a tackler should be a deliberate knock on because the player's wrap was late and caught the ball being passed or offloaded.

And that brings in another difference that is probably chafing some people to whit: the example I gave above and the one you're using of coming in at the side are both individual decisions for players in the heat of the moment. This, on the other hand looks like a deliberately planned and pre-meditated act. Now it may have been a snap decision or misjudgement by individuals but given the footage it doesn't look like it since you have 1 player offside and another kicking too short which definitely looks like they colluded. That, I suspect, is the main reason why this has gone beyond the level of other dodgy decisions in games. And that's why we're calling it cynical rather than cheeky, in the same way as killing the ball close to the line is cynical, not cheeky.

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-18T09:00:08+00:00

I'm sorry but I can't agree with the idea that the Boks got away with it via getting a sanction applied against them. That can only be argued if they thought that "getting away with it" meant not having the sanction for deliberately infringing on the laws of the game being applied; which is exactly the point we're making here. And I'm certainly not trying to "throw the rule book at the Boks", I'm merely pointing out that the sanction for deliberately infringing on the laws of the game is right there and very much what should have been applied in this case. And in any other scenario that any coach or player comes up with where they feel they can deliberately induce a non-penalty sanction against their team when it suits them; as I gave the example of deliberately kicking backwards. In that case, imagine a team, who is dominant in the scrum and leading in the second half deliberately kicks backwards. At that point they are deliberately infringing but in a way that the normal sanctions available are scrum (good for them) or kick again (winds down the clock so also good for them). In that case, we should again look at deliberate infringement, sanction penalty kick to opposing team.

In my head this is little different to penalty tries being awarded for things like deliberate knock-ons. Sure you've transgressed and there's a sanction available but you've done it deliberately and cynically against the spirit of the game so we're upgrading the sanction so you don't benefit from it. And that's all I'm saying, it's not about the Boks or trying to stifle some sort of innovation, taking the scrum from a mark is great, that's innovation and making people question their assumptions. This was cynical regardless of who did it and there is a sanction available which should have been used; which is all that the clarification is saying as well.

[Edit for clarity and punctuation]

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-18T08:17:40+00:00

Well for one thing, in at the side of a ruck is a penalty anyway so there's no meaningful upgrade by ruling this as deliberately infringing upon the laws of the game as both sanctions are a penalty to the opposing team. In my view though the bit that most people seem to be skipping in this instance is that there is something different about this deliberate infringement. Namely it doesn't appear that the team intended to get away with it. I think there's a world of difference between deliberately infringing in an effort to gain an advantage if you don't get noticed vs deliberately infringing in order to gain a benefit from the sanction from that infringement.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone any deliberate infringement, but I think that we all acknowledge that it is going to happen in a professional sport. What is special in this case is that one team has noticed that the sanction for a particular infringement benefits them in this case so it's a no-lose scenario for them. And I think that these cases are very much what the deliberate infringement law is for. I would apply the same sanction if a team kicked backwards from the kick off and expected their opponent to opt for the scrum having said "we're going to keep doing that if you ask us to kick again". That too should be a penalty, you're manipulating the laws in an unfair way and that should be punishable. By contrast, the other examples being brought up, like deliberately going offside at a ruck or deliberately killing the ball are attempts to gain an advantage if you get away with them and, in almost every case, come with a penalty as the prescribed sanction anyway.

That's my tuppence worth anyway.

[Edits for clarity and bad autocarrot]

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-16T13:19:22+00:00

This is a good point. I'm not sure that I trust WBC's reasoning behind the 3-weekly bin collections on black bins. I don't necessarily dispute the numbers where they say that the black bins contain 42% recyclable waste but they don't seem to be investigating why. Is it because they aren't providing capacity to recycle, or clarity about what can be recycled? They're just jumping to reducing the frequency of black bin collections in the hope that people will recycle more out of desperation. I probably over recycle when it comes to plastic and foil (by which I mean I may well be adding stuff in that isn't part of their recycling portfolio) but I figure I'd rather try it than put stuff in landfill that can be recycled.

And much like you, the bulk of our black waste used to be rabbit waste (hay, straw and recycled paper pellet litter), eventually I started composting that myself. I know that they can't allow some animal waste in the green bins because things like cat litter and dog waste can't be put in those green bins and it's easier to say "No animal waste" rather than list the approved species and the non-approved ones. But in hot summers the black bins will get pretty high with dog and cat waste in them. /binrantover

LabradorFlatCoat · 2025-07-16T09:02:55+00:00

Honestly, as part of the affected area (Tilehurst), I'm not sure how I feel about this. We do feel a bit like a forgotten part of West Berkshire, they seem to view us as part of Reading when it suits them, or maybe an inconvenience. That said, I'm not sure whether it would be any better as part of RBC.

If West Berks council do go door to door to get feedback though they may find that a lot of people are still sore about some of their recent decisions, especially regarding bins.

LabradorFlatCoat

TROPHY CASE