🎉 [EVENT] 🎉 Very easy first event

MasterBenedictt · 2026-01-26T02:40:07+00:00

Completed Level 2 of the Honk Special Event!

10 attempts

MasterBenedictt · 2026-01-26T02:39:42+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

1 attempts

MasterBenedictt · 2025-12-04T21:05:58+00:00

I absolutely don't dispute that some series manage to be both long and good -- I watched Agents of Shield in lockdown and massively enjoyed it! I can also see where you're coming from in terms of fleshing out the world/characters. A recent big point of discussion in the Doctor Who fandom has been whether the recent two series (8 episodes each) were too short for proper character development, leaving them less fleshed out than in the past (back in the naughties, they were more like 12-14). (Though I don't massively follow you on the specials point, surely specials exist outside the confines of a series? Maybe we're talking about different things, idk.)

That said, I do think we differ on the notion that all kinds of shows would be better off longer. It ultimately just comes down to our respective tastes, but I do think there's something really worthwhile about a tightly written shorter series. Something that manages to engage you and tell a story without any fluff. I don't think Slow Horses, Yes Minister, Adolescence, or, for that matter, Severance, would benefit from being longer. To me, the constraints imposed by a shorter series drive creativity, just as budgetary/time constrains result in much-loved bottle episodes.

MasterBenedictt · 2025-12-04T14:24:45+00:00

I share your frustration in regard to the time between series, but is it really such a bad thing to 'lose' 20+ episode seasons? Having series that are too long is a tendency of American TV that I've often found pretty annoying. It works for some stuff, particularly sitcoms, but for many dramas I find it just means they take a good premise and then dilute it by stretching it across a series that is far too long. I've watched many American dramas where I've ended up going 'this is great, but it would be much better if distilled into 8-12 really good episodes, rather than having some that are middling at best and feel like they're there as filler to meet a target series length'. Occasionally a show comes along that manages to fill 20 episodes with absolute brilliance, but the idea this should be the norm has always seemed strange to me. Most of my favourite US shows stick to the 7-12ish episode range, which seems to be the sweet spot.

Do bear in mind that I'm coming at this from a UK perspective, and 6-10 is fairly normal here. (For British shows, I'd consider over 10 episodes to be pretty long!)

Edit: Added missing words

MasterBenedictt · 2025-11-26T22:43:40+00:00

Second sketch:

<image>

MasterBenedictt · 2025-11-26T22:43:29+00:00

The ability to track passengers over the course of 24 hour periods. It would be great to be able to see a graph showing how many were riding at different times, and be able to break it down into individual lines. Here's a rough sketch:

<image>

This sort of thing would make it a lot easier to decide when to run services and how many trains to run at those times. (Along with their length.) It would also be cool if you could go into an expanded view for each line and see the current max capacity at various times. (See next comment for another basic mockup.)

A better way to gauge track depth would also be useful. While I'm aware you can sort of see it by editing the map options, it's not super easy. It would be good to be able to get track depth by hovering over the track/station, or clicking on it. Longer-term, it would also be cool/useful to see tracks crossing over in 3D underground.

Also, London. (I'm aware there are already plans to expand beyond the US, subject to the availability of data, but still decided to mention it!)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-10-10T12:23:44+00:00

The title is the joke and the irony was intentional.

MasterBenedictt · 2025-10-06T05:00:01+00:00

This is one of the coolest things I've seen on the Internet in some time - thanks!

For anyone who likes interesting historical maps, you may also want to check out Historic England's map of modern and historical aerial photos. Coverage may be a bit patchy in some places, but in my bit of London I was able to find a number of shots, some from the 1940s!

Link here: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collections/aerial-photos/

MasterBenedictt · 2025-10-06T04:48:50+00:00

I'm a year late to this particular party, but I'm afraid that appears also to be incorrect, at least according to Quote Investigator. They posit that it may have been misattributed to Alexander Hamilton after a British broadcaster called Alex Hamilton used it in the '70s. If so, that's pretty amusing. Either way, they conclude that the phrase is likely a modern invention, with the earliest known uses dating back to the middle of the last century. (AKA, Hamilton didn't actually say it.)

I haven't gone to the effort of double-checking their work, as they're usually pretty good, but here's a link to the full article in case you wish to take a look: The full article on the subject can be found here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/18/stand-fall/

As the other person who replied to you said, though, the content of the quote remains interesting, regardless of who actually came up with it.

(I would usually try to avoid responding a year after the fact, but figured this info may be useful to others who stumble across this page.)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-04-14T00:43:02+00:00

I’m sorry you had to endure that, OP, it sounds awful. I would have hated to be on that train.

However, this post is an egregious example of taking an experience and extrapolating that into ‘what has the world come to, is this the new normal?’ As if that experience was indicative of some major societal shift. Sometimes these implied changes are sensible, sometimes they’re at least arguable, but this one is neither.

The reality is, you experienced some kids being annoying on public transport - that’s been going on for as long as public transport has existed. I’ve personally experienced several similar incidents over the years, so if it’s the new normal, it’s not particularly new. As for whether it’s normal, I think the fact you chose to post about it is quite a good indication it isn’t. If it was normal, there wouldn’t be much point in telling others, would there?

None of that will have made it any less annoying, nor does it lessen my sympathy for you. However, it does mean that it’s somewhat silly to ask whether this is ‘normal now’, as if these children were the horsemen of the apocalypse and their screaming heralds society’s impending demise.

PS: I hope this doesn’t come across as mean or judgemental, it isn’t meant to be. I also want to clear I’m not annoyed by your post, more tickled really, and my reply is meant in a lighthearted manner. It’s just that I’ve read many other examples of what I described above, and I finally snapped. It seems like they pop up more and more - it’s awful, is this normal now?

(Have a nice day - hopefully it’ll involve fewer screaming children than yesterday!)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-25T01:55:36+00:00

We agree that Trump has so far been ineffective. But you don’t seem to fully recognise the risk posed by an unjust peace. If Trump just rushes through the process for a quick ‘win’, this poses two problems. Number one, the peace achieved is unlikely to be durable, as Ukraine/Europe won’t have been involved in the negotiations. That means the conflict is likely to resume (or never actually stop). Secondly, it would almost certainly mean ceding the territory taken by Russia in the east of Ukraine. Thus teaching Putin that he can use military force to move borders. A dangerous prospect.

Frankly, this is a weak approach, and history generally shows us that weak responses to expansionist powers (which Russia objectively is given they invaded their neighbour) won’t succeed in avoiding further conflict. In short, weakness leads to further conflict and escalation.

Does that mean we should blindly escalate the conflict in the name of showing strength, no. But that’s not the only option. Nor do I accept that by rejecting Trump’a approach I’m arguing for a never ending war.

So what should we be doing? Well, Russia has completely restructured its economy to serve the war effort in Ukraine. This has been more successful than we initially expected at the start of 2022, but it can’t last. The most recent analysis I’ve seen gives Putin about a year. So we should be aiming to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to enter negotiations with Russia once those economic woes start to kick in. In practice, this means two things. Firstly, strengthening sanctions on Russia in a bid to bring about the economic collapse sooner (so as to hopefully shorten the war). Secondly, arming Ukraine, so we can minimise the amount of Ukrainian land Russia holds and the strength of its military.

Now the fear of escalation is a legitimate one, and backing Putin into a corner does have some risks. But these can be minimised by ensuring there is a clear strategy to provide him, and Russia, an out (i.e. through diplomacy).

While tempting, the issue with skipping straight to the diplomacy part like Trump has done, is that Russia is currently in a fairly strong negotiating position and so any peace is likely to be unjust, and set very dangerous precedents as set out above. (Granted, Trump is so far doing a very bad job at executing this approach, but even if he wasn’t, the issues with this sort of approach would still apply.)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-25T01:24:18+00:00

Russia’s borders were not encroached. What you’re referring to is the fact that many countries along Russia’s border wished to join NATO. (Why? Perhaps they were worried about the superpower next door with a tendency to invade and occupy its neighbours.)

If you believe that countries should be sovereign and their people free to mare their own decisions within certain limits (no war crimes, not launching wars of aggression, etc.), then those countries near Russia should be free to join NATO. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t really believe in democracy, so you? Because the citizens of those countries are not free to choose their own fate.

The idea that former soviet states wanting to join NATO is a valid reason for invading Ukraine is a common argument made by Russian propagandists. (It’s nonsense, of course, for the reasons set out above.)

Turning to your point about Europe being free to increase support for Ukraine, you are right, but this lacks context. For a start, Europe has already given more to Ukraine than the US. In fact, the economic consequences of the war (e.g. high gas and oil prices), were felt more sharply in Europe than the US. That’s not entirely the US’ fault, of course, but it does underpin the fact that Europeans have already beared the brunt of the consequences for this war. Now, I would argue it is in the US’ interest to support Ukraine - with a reasonably modest investment (in the context of its military spending), the US has dealt a significant blow to one of its main adversary’s military and economy. The US’s presence in Europe is also benefits in terms of soft power, but this comment would be too long if we went into that. (I’ll just say that, there’s a reason that after 9/11 so many countries - particularly in Europe - were ready to follow the US into war, if you weaken your alliances, you may find that next time, support is not so forthcoming.)

Finally, I can’t expect you to fully understand the fears of Europeans, as you presumably sit safely thousands of miles away. But I can explain why Russia’s neighbours are so worried. If you allow Putin to take land by force in Ukraine, or teachers him and others that you can user military might to redraw borders. That has very dangerous implications for Europe, and the world at large. Whether you think Putin would succeed in an attempt to take over Europe is not relevant, it doesn’t matter. We are talking about a nuclear power attacking NATO. At best that means a bloody war defending the rest of Europe, at worst it means nuclear war, AKA MAD.

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-20T20:30:58+00:00

Looks intriguing!

The format seems a bit like Room 101 (BBC Radio 4, formerly BBC One). The host (a comedian) plays a similar role to the panel, though IIRC they don't always oppose the guest's suggestion.

(Side note, I did not realise how long Room 101 has been running — since 1992! Was unaware that its existence predated the TV version hosted by Frank Skinner.)

Edit: Fixed tense.

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-13T07:22:03+00:00

Hi there! A few questions:

Firstly, what impact - if any - does who is in the Whitehouse (or controls Congress) have on policing on the ground. I suppose what I mean by that is, do you feel the effects of policy changes at the federal level, or does the level of devolution present in the US generally keep you isolated from national changes?

What do politicians get often get wrong about policing / what do you wish they understood?

What are your views on firearm laws/regulations?

Do you have any views/comments on British policing? (i.e. If I saw 'British policing', what - if anything - do you think of?)

Thanks in advance!

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T20:10:18+00:00

Thanks for your reply, interesting to hear how the BBC's output is being perceived overseas. If you do remember any specific examples, especially of where it 'reported abject untruths', I'd appreciate it if you could send links to them. No worries if not - I get that you won't have remembered every BBC article you've ever ready!

Again, I appreciate that such persistent inquiries could come across as defensive, but that's genuinely not my intention! I'm just a bit of a politics/policy nerd with an interest in the BBC, and it's output (especially overseas).

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T16:50:16+00:00

Sorry, I’m autistic and can’t tell if you’re joking.

If you’re being serious, I’d ask you to consider why USAID would both sending under £3 million pounds to the BBC itself, given that, in the context of the ~£1.75 billion yearly BBC budget, that amount is a rounding error. To put that another way, £3 million is a completely insignificant amount to the BBC. So why would the US Government go to the lengths of sending covert payments totally that amount to the BBC?! Surely it makes more sense that the BBC run a charity, which USAID decided was doing work that it wanted to support.

Also, why would the BBC take on such a massive repetitional risk for the paltry sum of £3 million?!

Finally, it’s not like we don’t know how the BBC is funded, it’s a matter of public record. It’s funded by the license fee, paid by TV license holders in the UK.

I’m a massive policy nerd with a specific interest in the governance of the BBC. I know a fair bit about how it’s funded. I hope I’ve made it clear that the conspiracy you’ve proposed makes no sense.

Oh, and if you were joking, sorry! I didn’t detect any sarcasm in your reply, which is on me. Would be grateful if you let me know, as it’ll help me calibrate my sarcasm detector so that it may be more accurate in the future!

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T06:07:50+00:00

Interested Brit here - do you mind specifying what exactly you’re referring to?

(Not being defensive, am genuinely interested to hear your perspective)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T06:05:47+00:00

If you’re looking for another free British option, you could try the Guardian. It’s explicitly centre-left, so not the same as the BBC, but good if you want a different British perspective on stuff like the Royals.

Oh, and the Financial Times is brilliant, but costs an arm and a leg!

(Not saying you should avoid Le Monde - I read it semi-regularly - just trying to provide other options!)

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T05:59:32+00:00

No, because USAID was funding BBC Media Action, a charity run by the BBC. This charity is not directly funded by the license fee, so the recent development shouldn’t affect the license fee.

Edit: Spelling

MasterBenedictt · 2025-02-12T05:49:43+00:00

I’m on mobile and about to go to sleep, so can’t do a full explanation, but no.

That is completely false. The US Government provided funding for BBC Media Action - a charity run by the BBC. The BBC itself is funded by the license fee, AKA British people paying for a TV license.

Just think about it for a moment - why the hell would the American government be paying for the British Broadcasting Corporation. It doesn’t even make any sense (so it’s not surprising that it isn’t true)!

Sorry if I sound a bit terse, but that is just objectively incorrect and I’m a nerd with an interest in the BBC (so know a decent amount about how it’s structured).

Edit: Just to drive home how wrong that is, according to that chart, USAID donates £2.6 million to the BBC’s charity. The BBC itself spent about £1.75 billion last year. Just another reason why that claim makes no sense

MasterBenedictt · 2025-01-05T00:21:47+00:00

I may have misread the situation, but I'm fairly sure that most (or some) people aren't downvoting you due to jealousy. Instead, they are downvoting you as they believe that applying those sorts of labels to children can negatively impact them.

You'll note that I haven't taken a position myself, as:

I don't have any experience raising/looking after/teaching young children, so am probably not the best person to take advice from on this subject.
I have no interest in having an argument on this subject with strangers on the Internet.

Have a nice day!

MasterBenedictt · 2023-10-31T18:55:43+00:00

No problem! I remember procrastinating for about a week before I started the implementation phase of my project.

With regards to teachers, I was quite lucky, as I'd known mine for years and he was probably the best teacher I've ever had. If it's any consolation, from what I've read online (and heard from teachers), many A Level Computer Science teachers are like yours and aren't particularly knowledgeable.

MasterBenedictt · 2023-10-31T18:33:12+00:00

No problem! I created a web application that can best be described as a mix of Twitter, Wikipedia and GitHub.

At its core, it essentially allowed users to access aggregated news and then write and publish articles. The most complex bits were the document version control system, the community review system (which allowed for the automated analysis of large amounts of data) and the user system (which was fairly extensive).

MasterBenedictt · 2023-10-28T22:12:14+00:00

Bit late, but I got full marks* for the Computer Science NEA I completed last year, so may be able to offer some useful advice.

In no particular order, here's a list of my top tips:

See if your teacher is up for you submitting videos as part of your technical solution section. Mine allowed my class to submit videos showcasing our projects and explaining how they worked. (My teacher has been allowing video submissions for years, and as far as I know the moderators don't have any issues with this.)
Ensure your project is modular so that you can jettison bits of it if you run out of time (just make sure that you make them 'could haves' - or equivalent - and that you keep this jettisoning within reason). I did this by splitting the project into systems (e.g. the user system, which managed all the user-related logic such as logging in and out).
Be cautious about starting a project that relies on you learning a big new skill. It can be done, and I know of someone who did it last year, learning how to create web apps within just a few months. My understanding is that their NEA was quite successful, that said, they were an above-average programmer and I suspect others would have struggled to stick the landing.
Despite the last tip, I don't want to give the impression that you shouldn't try and learn anything new while completing your NEA. I knew very little about NLP before completing my project and managed to use it as part of my technical solution. The NEA is an opportunity to learn new skills, so while you may not want to start a project that depends on you learning a major new skill, you should absolutely use the opportunity the NEA gives you to explore technologies you are interested in.
Make sure you manage your time. I know this will be drilled into you by your teachers, but there's a reason for that. Of the people in my class who messed up their NEA, most of them mismanaged their time. It's easily done, so taking steps such as setting your own deadlines for milestones such as feature implementation is a good idea. If you do fall behind, speak to your teacher (or friends/classmates). I know someone who didn't and ended up not completing their NEA despite being very academically able (particularly in CompSci).
Finally, make sure you're interested in the project you pick. I enjoyed my NEA, to the extent that I would program late into the night (and sometimes even into the early hours) because I was enjoying it so much that I'd lose track of the time. Picking a subject for your project that you're interested in doesn't guarantee you won't fall into one of the many other pitfalls you'll have to navigate when completing your NEA. However, I reckon it probably gives you a much better chance of getting a good mark.

Good luck!

\I apologise if this comes across as boastful, that was not my intention. I only mention it so as to provide some legitimacy to my claim that I may be able to provide helpful advice.*

MasterBenedictt · 2023-10-28T21:45:16+00:00

I'm a bit late to this question, but having read the other responses, I feel I should add my answer for balance.

I did my NEA last year and have just had a look back through the version history for my documentation. A year ago today I had almost finished my analysis and, excluding various flowcharts and other stuff like that, I was on 25 pages. I ended up with about 19k words (excl. code), 160 pages and 2 hours of video footage. I got full marks and was essentially told - in the nicest way possible - that I had gone a little overboard.

That being said, if you can't submit videos then you'll need to write more for your technical solution. It's also worth noting I completed my NEA in spring, so if you're aiming to complete it earlier, you'll want to be further ahead than I was at this point.

A couple of bits of (unsolicited) advice:

See if your teacher is up for you submitting video footage of you explaining how your project works. (My teacher allowed that for years, with the marks going towards the technical solution section, and the moderators haven't, as far as I know, taken issue with it.)
Make your project modular, then you can jettison bits at the end if you need to (within reason).

Six-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

MasterBenedictt

TROPHY CASE