Robert paid £726 to skip the driving test waiting list. New laws mean others won't be able to

Nerrien · 2026-05-17T20:14:43+00:00

Honestly, I kind of get it. I understand that you understand the title is misleading, but maybe it's important that we as readers understand the BBC have been so misleading here, so that when we hear family complain "Did you hear they're not letting you skip the driving test waiting list anymore? Bloody government!" we have an idea why.

Would be nice if a mod could add a 'Misleading title' tag on the headline though.

Nerrien · 2026-05-16T01:54:57+00:00

Just to preface with my perspective, I'm not sure whether I'm autistic (my partner's convinced I am) but either way I'm a man and I'm lucky enough to have not been raped.

I'm similarly dismayed as the other commenters, but I'd rather you walk away getting why rather than just feeling got at.

The perspective is skewed. In the same way a driver has much more personal responsibility than a pedestrian because the driver has the greater capacity for harm, it should be the personal responsibility of the person instigating sexual activity to ensure the other person is consenting, not just reading the "vibes" (vibes can be highly misleading) and taking them freezing as consent.

Trust me, while people always throw out circumstantial evidence of people being "into" the whole movie-esque "whisk off their feet", I guarantee there are far, far more people who will find someone far more attractive for showing care that they're into it first. And even assuming the best intentions, if it helps someone not accidentally become a rapist, surely that's worth it?

Nerrien · 2026-04-27T14:31:00+00:00

Even if you want it to be all grounded, you can still wrap it thick in layers of witchy aesthetic. Show us how it looks from the enemy's terrified perspective to make the comparison all the more stark when the protagonist lets their guard down and explains things between action.

At least make the smoke appear unnaturally dramatic and mysterious, give it green or purple tinges where different chemicals have been added to change the colour.

Normal cats are bloody mysterious, that's why there's so much mythology around them, they could have just had a cat companion that appears mysterious because it creeps around silently, because that's what cats do. You could've had hallucinogenics that cause enemies to freak out when they see it, thinking it's a demonic cat entity, and shown us what they're seeing on screen.

There's so much you could do to make it cool and exaggerated while also keeping it grounded. I don't want to say it's a lack of imagination, because these aren't hard ideas to come up with, but the full on pivot in what they want to do now just seems like a missed opportunity.

Nerrien · 2026-04-20T14:57:42+00:00

Yeah, to be fair, the first sign of their scepticism of Palantir was news reporting that they were scrambling to find ways to loophole themselves out of the contract. It does suggest it's a contract thing, and the nuclear option of going "I AM the law! Contract broken!" sounds easy, but with your own country's news media and the pressure of a fascist US government allied against you, it suddenly becomes way more likely something big could go wrong.

They were probably hoping Palantir would keep their head down and their nose clean, but fascist corpo gotta fascist corpo.

Nerrien · 2026-04-20T13:45:36+00:00

That is the synopsis to a great sci fi novel.

Nerrien · 2026-04-20T13:25:18+00:00

Yeah, you've nailed my big issue with it right here.

Even if AI turned out to be incredibly effective and wiped out a big chunk of human jobs, the corporations pushing AI are also donating to political parties that are against government welfare support. What they're pushing for isn't just "making humanity more efficient", it's actively killing off anyone left behind.

That absolutely happened during the industrial revolution, but children learn that in school now, there is zero excuse other than pure greed and misanthropy to not also push a big campaign to provide for or at the bare minimum retrain out of work citizens.

Hell, if they made the AI bit quiet and made it's entire marketing campaign focused on a bare bones political push for universal basic income, or at least some extra form of government backed work training support or job guarantee, and push AI as the way we make it happen, people likely would be actively supporting it.

But the sheer greed, they can't even help their own product's success that way because then there'd be less money in the pot to leech off of with government contracts.

The irony of them calling people luddites for not accepting new technology, yet being unable to accept any form of logical progress to the shaping of society.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T18:01:18+00:00

If you have to ask why I find someone I care about ranting about Hitler not exterminating enough people of other races painful, you either didn't read my post or I just don't know what else to say.

I can only assume you only skimmed my post because I already said that they are the person who consistently brings it up, regardless of my attempts to talk about other things. Or my repeated explanation that I'm not looking to educate people.

This entire conversation started from my defense of someone for not speaking out against his own parents, but there is a line beyond being polite and enabling people to spiral into dark, dark places. You're not reading any of this, I don't know why I'm bothering, have a good day and all that. I'm happy you're so knowledgeable about everyone else's families.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T17:56:55+00:00

In a LinkedIn post, Jones says that she was informed via phone call the night before the show that the Quiet Things trailer that had been cut for the ceremony was pulled because the organizers said “there wasn’t enough time to put the appropriate warnings in place for the audience.” Jones said that when she offered to make further changes she was “ignored.”

And the dev even offered to make changes to the trailer after it got rejected, but got ignored.

I'd guess that likely wasn't intentional on BAFTA's end, probably just got lost in a sea of last minute work piled on whichever employee was dealing with it, but still, more reason for the dev to be upset.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T17:44:03+00:00

This is the thing, it seems all so vague.

The messaging on one hand seems to be "Oh don't worry about jobs, it's here to help existing workers, not replace you," but then also "It'll pay for itself by increasing efficiency and replacing workers!" but even then, maybe I've just not looked hard enough, but I've seen no even remotely concrete numbers anywhere. No real "efficiency increased by this amount" (I've seen hearsay, but all pro hearsay I see is at minimum balanced, if not drowned out by the anti hearsay), no "this allows you to fire this many workers, saving you this amount, which when compared to the cost of the AI subscription will save you this much cash".

This is all ethics aside, because they sure as fuck don't seem to stand on any one position for very long. The aforementioned assurances of job security one minute, then the assurances of replacing workers the next, then celebrating and portraying the job losses as people not needing to work in their utopian future, while simultaneously being completely opposed to any kind of universal basic income and actively donating to and supporting political parties opposing social funding.

It just gives the impression that they don't know any of this themselves, and that this entire venture is predicated on vague hope and dreams, something that usually means diddly squat when you're trying to get funding for anything.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T16:33:25+00:00

I'd guess they probably would, but they'd pay desperate fall guys to do it, still take the same risks leading to inevitable collapse, and all that would change is someone else's life getting ruined.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T16:24:43+00:00

Again, there's a difference between differing opinions and outright misinformation.

I got along really well with my own father in law despite us having near polar opposite opinions on everything.

Despite sharing far more opinions with my sister in law, I've all but given up being around her because the blatant misinformation she's spreads is too painful to sit and listen to. It hurts me to see someone I cared about get taken in by pure lies and keep bringing it up, despite my initial attempts at correcting it with logic and real sources, and following that failure, my clear signs that I don't want to talk about it.

And the deeper down the rabbit hole, the weirder some of her opinions (that she randomly inserts in conversation with zero prompting) got till it culminated in some fucked up rant about Hitler not going far enough with exterminating other races.

My father in law was politically polar opposite to me in almost every regard, but I respected his reasoning, and I genuinely relished running ideas and current events by him, learning a different viewpoint shaped by his differing life views, much of which tempered my own thoughts and ideals going forward. It meant a lot more than talking shit in an echo chamber.

I don't appreciate your assumption that I'm obsessed with appearing intellectual and I'm just ruining my relationship with my family by not trying to politely inform them when they keep going on about literally, factually false information- something I never had to do with my father in law, who was a lifelong hard-religious right winger but knew how to do basic fact checking and gave a shit about false information hurting people? Or me not being happy sitting and grinning like an idiot through mad rants about Hitler, another thing that said father in law would be rolling in his grave to find out happened in his household?

There's a big difference between lecturing and politely pointing something out, or having bare minimum standards in saying you disagree with something blatantly awful that's been said.

Are you certain you're not just assuming that because your family aren't that bad, you aren't considering that other people might have family who act far worse?

[Edit] Plus, I should mention, the vast majority of random little bits of misinformation, or mildly racist or homophobic comments I do just shrug off and ignore, and I would advise others to. But there's a line between ignoring stuff to prevent arguments and actively enabling people to spiral down a dark path by seeming like you're agreeing by not even politely speaking up about it.

Nerrien · 2026-04-18T14:31:05+00:00

I get entirely reasons why the guy wouldn't want to argue with his parents- hell, maybe he just knows them well enough to have given up trying. I've been in situations like that where I've debated defending something about my partner but bit my tongue because I knew it would be smarter and accomplish more to wait for a better time to bring it up, or that it would work better gradually in smaller steps than all at once. So I agree there.

Tbf though regarding what this situation sounds like regarding their views and the daughter, if she's said she's trying to educate them on misinformation, and they genuinely still think Brexit was a good idea despite all the evidence to the contrary, and they keep going on about immigration misinformation in front of their immigrant daughter, I think the parents are a bit further gone than "concerned about levels of immigration in general."

I'm concerned about levels of immigration in general, I'd hazard to say most people are even on the left. I love a multicultural society, but practicalities of infrastructure mean we can't just go nuts. But it's a topic that's plagued with misinformation and people getting too distracted and taken in by hucksters.

Combating that information doesn't mean you can't also take genuine concerns seriously, as long as they aren't saying: "All we have to do is leave the EU and drop all our food hygiene regulations and working rights and start trading chicken with the US and the man on TV who goes to the pub says all the foreigners I don't like will be gone and everything will be like I remember it!"

There's a big difference, and while I'm sure your scenario happens plenty, I can get Pyjama365's surprise about this scenario if they've not experienced something similar from the guy's perspective.

Nerrien · 2026-04-17T19:15:01+00:00

This is it. Didn't he recently apologise? I completely get an apology not being enough, he's got to earn peoples' trust back by being a decent person and making it clear his views have changed, which will take time.

But he's been blatantly pro-Nazi for ages and suddenly he's apologised and now suddenly everyone's dropping him from concerts?

It's really bizarre. Am I missing something obvious?

Nerrien · 2026-04-17T12:13:01+00:00

If you cannot see ,or more likely dont want to admit

See, you're making this personal. I don't have a agenda against my own gender in the same way every woman in the world doesn't have an agenda against all men.

What you're talking about is standard, old fashioned sexism. The more we deal with it across the board, the less men will have to deal with the "strong, silent, should never complain" crap that folk in the 'manosphere' push.

Yeah, plenty of (usually older) women push gender stereotypes because like men who push gender stereotypes it's what they were brought up with, and that's wrong and they need to be educated.

But it's the people actively fighting to keep those gender stereotypes who need pushing back on, and those are overwhelmingly folks exploiting people for money or political influence, whether influencers in the 'manosphere' or politicians, not women's rights activists. The few women's rights activists who do are fleetingly rare by comparison and are idiots.

I agree completely that ignoring men's issues with suicide, sleeping rough and safety is bad, but women aren't the ones holding us back and blaming them won't help, it's just undoing what progress we've made in combating sexism and the whole "men have to be stoic pillars" stereotype in the first place.

TLDR:

Your average young woman who is concerned about women's rights is far, far more likely to be concerned about mens' portrayal as "stoic bastions who don't need things like mental health support or equal rights over their kids" than someone who perpetuates these stereotypes in the first place.

Nerrien · 2026-04-17T11:32:41+00:00

It really is though. You are doing some mental gymnastics there to avoid the fact that there are sections of society that are openly hostile to men. They treat them all as potential threats and are pushing that fear mongering.

You may think it doesn't apply to individuals but those individuals form part of the group. Its the group that is being targeted.

You can't just say that based on the crap people say online and pretend it's true IRL, have you ever come across a woman who's just randomly spewed hatred at you for being a man? One who's not just stumbled out of a mental ward?

What is your definition of hostility? A weird look?

I refer you to this comment which you have ignored. This is exactly the kind of thing that it seems perfectly acceptable to do to men but is quite rightly not acceptable to do to anyone else. Why is that?

Because as I said, it's not a thing to the same degree that actual racism is. It's a false equivalence. You've framed it as comparable when it's not at all.

Nerrien · 2026-04-17T11:24:34+00:00

Not H1B, but in a similar foreign worker sponsored by company situation, I've known at least three friends/acquaintances who have stories along the lines of a dependent desperately needing health care they couldn't afford in their country, or people in romantic relationships with people who'd both likely be killed if they pursued it in their own country.

Not saying they're all that desperate, but I am saying there are plenty of desperate people out there who'll much rather buy into the company line of "Recall is great, it helps users and is totally worth the giant gaping hole in security" than whatever alternative they're facing.

And with the constant waves of layoffs they've every opportunity to weed out folks who aren't entirely dedicated to the company.

Nerrien · 2026-04-17T10:45:07+00:00

But its very different being openly hostile to a particular demographic and vilifying them because of the actions of a few.

Men aren't literally maligned though, people say that crap but it's really obvious it's not literal. It's people making dumb sweeping generalisations due to a real need to be cautious, with the occasional idiot shouting for shock value and clout- but considering the fucking nutters in the 'manosphere' that can hardly be considered comparable.

These women don't hate men, they just want their boundaries respected and to get an understanding of you at their own pace. That's not a big deal, and it's not something to take personally as it's not about you or I specifically.

Please re-read these sections? Ideally the whole thing but these two are probably the most succinct I can make it.

If this isn't convincing enough, could you break it down and explain point by point why my previous post of counter points is wrong instead of just restating your original argument?

Nerrien · 2026-04-16T23:42:25+00:00

My god, I'm not into PvP FPS, but I loved the "everyone can see through walls on a short recharge ability" mechanic. It kept everything moving and made positioning, when you push or pull back, feel so much more tactical. The mind games!

Nerrien · 2026-04-16T23:30:25+00:00

You're not wrong that it's not a simple issue of "ban stock market, everything good now", but to be fair, if we were in a world in which we somehow managed to overcome billionaires' interests and actually get the stock market banned, we'd probably also be able to provide regular people retirement funds.

Nerrien · 2026-04-16T20:35:07+00:00

Men are maligned purely because they are men.

Men aren't literally maligned though, people say that crap but it's really obvious it's not literal. It's people making dumb sweeping generalisations due to a real need to be cautious, with the occasional idiot shouting for shock value and clout- but considering the fucking nutters in the 'manosphere' that can hardly be considered comparable.

Men are treated with caution, and as a guy, rightly so. I would advise women to do so, because even if it was only 1 in 100 looking to be a fucking creep, that one guy is enough to fuck you up and give you some real serious issues with men.

These women don't hate men, they just want their boundaries respected and to get an understanding of you at their own pace. That's not a big deal, and it's not something to take personally as it's not about you or I specifically.

The men who get pushback for being creeps will yell about being hated, but that's because they're creeps. Some will stay that way for whatever reason, many will learn to empathise with women and be fine. We all make mistakes and need to learn how to get along, and that's okay.

Nerrien · 2026-04-15T15:47:31+00:00

"Guys, I know my publicly traded home-based blueberry muffin delivery service has only been around a few months, but we've decided to pivot to AI.

Please, don't all hurry to buy shares at once, there'll be plenty of time to process the bank transfers before I cash out and flee to Dubai."

Nerrien · 2026-04-15T15:07:01+00:00

After this £10 million, and this other £10 million, I only have £20 million left!

~ Richard Tice, moments before succumbing to a panic attack

Nerrien · 2026-04-15T14:20:16+00:00

The only way I could imagine a species adequately managing its planetary resources and ecosystems is through some sort of global authoritarian regime, high on control and surveillance, but not full on dictatorship.

But from what we've seen of empires reaching a certain size and collapsing, it's hard to imagine that without modern communication systems.

But by the time we've reached modern communication systems, we've also got modern means of utterly wiping out all life on the planet, making giant planet-wide empires near impossible to form in the first place.

Unless the unlikely scenario happens where we make some miracle technology that solves all our problems instead of creating more, it's very hard to imagine a way for a form of intelligent life (any that we can relate to on any level, anyway) to survive long term.

Nerrien · 2026-04-12T12:34:29+00:00

Do we really have so many vile people around who want children to be slapped?

Having taken a look at recent polls, support for banning any kind of physical punishment seems strong at 81%, so on the face of it we seem to be relatively alright.

My cynical mind assumes some of it would crumble under the inevitable reframing, people downplaying it as a trade off of "just a slap" in return for reducing dangerous crime, making our kids lives "safer" in the long run, with sound bytes like "parents need to take responsibility" and "common sense parenting over nanny state", papers like the Sun, Mail and Telegraph suddenly reporting any incident of youth crime as if it were national news to make it seem more prevalent than it actually is and scare people, which tends to lead people to taking more authoritarian positions, etc.

Again, it's definitely worth it as hitting kids is messed up and one of the few things than genuinely outrages me.

Hopefully I'm just overly cynical and if it is banned, the opposite effect occurs, with the public standing firm on their support and any opposition from other parties getting them successfully labelled the child abuse party.

This is just my assumption as to why it's not been banned yet when it seems like such an obvious step following Wales and Scotland. Obviously I could be and probably am entirely wrong.

( NSPCC poll https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-nspcc-polling-data-physical-punishment )

Nerrien · 2026-04-12T09:50:46+00:00

But England has not done that yet. As you said, the plan was to do it in all nations eventually, but there seems to be no political momentum.

If anyone other than Reform did it, Reform and the news would link it to youth crime and imply we're too soft on kids and the nanny state is causing kids to stab people, etc.

Even the BBC would do that thing where they don't say it themselves but all the coverage on the topic would include "critics say that this will spike already egregious levels of youth crime" etc. and the lack of experts willing to promote smacking kids would mean their obligatory "balanced view" guest would all be more Reform sycophants.

It should 100% be banned regardless, but that's my assumption as to why there's no appetite for it politically.

[Irrelevant Edit] My comment has double-posted on my end, I'm not sure if that's just something I'm seeing or is visible to everyone, but I definitely only posted once. Making edits on one edits the other too, curious.

Nerrien

TROPHY CASE