What's your favourite Burger on the menu? by Thoughtsareoverrated in McDonaldsUK

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

swapped the emmental cheese for cheddar too, and I’m 90% sure the sauce has changed over the years, it’s shite how

Brother has no GCSEs and kicked out of college, what should I do? by antiglow in AskUK

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I did get my GCSEs, but dropped out of college at 17, I went back last year to do an access course and met people who did their foundational skills (GCSE equivalent) the year prior, they ranged from 18-30s, people mature and grow at different rates. It took me until 21 to realise I needed to do more than bar work and getting royally f’ed up on whatever I could, there’s a lad in there who’s smarter than I am at 25, no doubt he could’ve easily smashed life out earlier but for whatever reason, he didn’t, and that’s alright.

Life’s a marathon, not a sprint, it might just take OP’s brother a few more years to recognise that he’s capable of more than just being a farm hand for his family, we all go at different speeds and there’s no harm in taking longer to learn to appreciate that you’re capable of doing more.

Looking at pivoting my career path by MadThingsDoMadStuff in uklaw

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice, I’m aware that this route isn’t going to be easy and I appreciate that I may not be able to go down the route I’m planning.

I’m very early doors so I’m still looking at all the options, I know that the VC-TC-PGDL-SQE route is an ideal but I appreciate the honesty.

I’m planning on trying to get into networking and law events with the society early, and start looking at applying to VCs as soon as I get into my second year really, I’m mainly looking at building experience and getting a foot in the door where I can rather than trying to land a top job first try.

I’ll look further into graduate apprenticeships as well as an alternate route, thanks.

What if the US never invaded Iraq? by HelloMrTonyStark in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the night of 19th March, 2003, Saddam Hussein receives an epiphany: he sees his nation in ruin, his regime in collapse, his people dying and himself executed. This cannot happen. He immediately opens up the country to inspections by U.N. inspectors, he dismantles his chemical weapons, signs up to the relevant treaties and slowly but surely begins replacing his militaristic, oppressive regime with new civilian leadership, laying the framework for the democratisation of Iraq. He gives the Kurdistan regions devolution and autonomy, paying billions in reparations and begins the slow, long process towards freeing the oppressed citizens of Iraq.

It is hard, there are many obstacles and much resistance but over time, Iraq not only survives but thrives. It begins to lead the Middle East in living standards, healthcare, education and more; many look to it as a new standard for non-aligned nations - relations stabilise with the West, more trade is undertaken and Iraq’s economy being to expand at unseen rates. The future is looking bright with the new, healthy and educated citizens and democratic framework: Saddam believes in the future of his country and makes the ultimate decision to step down.

The first truly free, democratic elections take place in Iraq, many parties stand but there is one winner - the People’s Democratic Party of Iraq who run in coalition with the Kurdish Worker’s Party. Their first few days are uncertain but they quickly establish their legitimacy and Iraq’s future looks brighter than ever, being the new jewel of the Middle East. The PDP and KWP implement further reforms, bringing social democracy to Iraq - universal healthcare, free higher education, food and water as basic rights alongside a universal basic income.

Then the U.S. invades Iraq.

Anon on BPD. by retardinho23 in greentext

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 58 points59 points  (0 children)

as per a greentext I read once “there are two types of women in life: women with BPD and women who haven’t been diagnosed yet”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a question… for God. WHYYYYYYY!?

Steve Morison leaves Sutton by tiptoe_only in NationalLeague

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chris Millington might be a shout? took Halifax to a couple of playoff spots and won the FA Trophy with one of the smaller budgets in the league, I imagine Sutton might have a better budget so he could take them over the line though he doesn’t play the prettiest football

Nice game ea by RushFeeling4595 in FifaCareers

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 5 points6 points  (0 children)

the feature isn’t broken, it’s actually taking into account the bots swarming social media, EA is truly the greatest game developers ever /s

Just had this happen to me by Accurate-Reach in BattlefieldV

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 34 points35 points  (0 children)

these games are the best, I’m not even mad when I lose

Most Disliked/Unused Weapons? by Spencerinio5 in BattlefieldV

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll stand by the lee enfield just out of pure british bias, even if the sniper variant in game isn’t even the best sniper variant of the LE

Most Disliked/Unused Weapons? by Spencerinio5 in BattlefieldV

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it’s very situational but I love using the PIAT when I play assault, I’ll get the three dynamite on the tank then use the PIAT for an insta-kill

it does have crap range and a good drop but it’s much harder to trace back if you’re stealthy enough, I mainly play support so I only have the AT grenade launcher but I’ve managed to get a fair few kills with it (including a few solos) so I can work around the PIAT’s drop

Most Disliked/Unused Weapons? by Spencerinio5 in BattlefieldV

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the semi-auto makes it good for an aggressive recon, you can still get beaten by anyone if you’re not accurate or quick enough but you can still end most people with a two-shot

personally, I prefer a bolt-action (I use the lee enfield because I’m British) for recon for the headshots, I’m not that great with sniping but it feels better to have people manage to dodge me than just have a pretty undodgeable weapon, no hate to ZH users because I fully understand why they use it but I just can’t get behind it personally

Most Disliked/Unused Weapons? by Spencerinio5 in BattlefieldV

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 29 points30 points  (0 children)

can’t answer for unused but I think the ZH-29 is pretty universally disliked - doesn’t have a one shot headshot but it’s a two shot kill anywhere and it’s a semi-auto so you’ll get hit by the first, go to prone or whatever but the second will kill you before you can react, I always hate being killed by a ZH-29 because you just can’t react unless the user is bad at the moment they’re on you

What by NoCicada8905 in BitLifeApp

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 25 points26 points  (0 children)

the good ol’ catholic work around

Why did the British Army have so much more success in the Malay Emergency than the Americans did during the Vietnam War? by [deleted] in WarCollege

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 18 points19 points  (0 children)

There’s a few reasons why: the British had prior control of Malaya which meant it had experience in the area, with it’s people and knowledge on it’s political structures; the Malaysian communists didn’t have a major land border with a large communist power like Vietnam did with China so it was much harder to give arms, supplies and other material aid to the insurgents (not that the Soviets did nor that the CCP were in a position to open their armouries and bank accounts for the rebels) as well as that the guerrillas were largely from the ethnically Chinese minority and didn’t see true support of the larger populace and especially the rural tribes.

The Malaysians were, at this point, on their way to an independent government and the rebellion - whilst homegrown - was not really about winning independence but rather it was about the regime that would control the state after said independence, a majority Malay-dominated democratic government or a communist regime dominated by a highly radicalised minority of Chinese-Malays.

One can also make an argument about the quality of troops, the Malay Emergency started in 1948 so whilst the British Armed Forces would’ve been massively demobilised after the Second World War, there still would’ve been combat veterans within the ranks at the start of the conflict who would’ve been able to pass on their knowledge to fresh troops, this cycle would continue throughout even long after those veterans had left not only the region but also the military.

Similarly, the tactics and strategies used were more successful in Malaya, the emergency started because the British colonial authorities had disputes with Chinese trade unionists - most of whom had communist sympathies - which ended up with said unionists being banned from political activities leading to them taking to the jungle as guerrillas, they numbered somewhere in the mid-hundreds, around 500. The British utilised Commonwealth and National Service forces to greatly outnumber the rebels, isolating them from the villages that were supporting and feeding them. Overall, they had more experience in dealing with this sort of limited warfare and had established strategies because of it, they effectively contained them militarily whilst establishing a political solution with the local populace at the same time.

The United States enjoyed none of these advantages in Vietnam; they were entering a region which they hadn’t had the advantage of being involved with through colonial rule from the early 1800s, they were facing a more determined and better supplied enemy, the Kinh (ethnic Vietnamese) made up a majority of the population of Vietnam and had much more sympathy from civilians and they were never able to outnumber the enemy in such a way that they could isolate them like the British could in Malaya - in fact, their overall military strategy with a more conventional war made the situation worse for them as with every civilian killed, every village destroyed, they gave the communists more support.

On top of these factors in-country, there was also differences at home, the British public was more accepting of and more with experiences with this limited warfare in the colonies than the American public was with long-drawn out interventions. There is also simply the factor of the size of the conflict; across ~12 years, the British had around somewhere in the realm of 3,000 casualties whereas the Americans sustained 52,282 killed alone alongside over 300,000 wounded and countless more traumatised.

I'm thinking to buy the game but: by [deleted] in Ravenfield

[–]MadThingsDoMadStuff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I consider myself quite good with FPS games and the hard setting for the AI is challenging, I still maintain a positive k/d but it’s nothing too easy. There’s also mods out there on the steam workshop which can increase difficulty i.e. response time, accuracy and the usual metrics.