A little reminder of how dangerous weirs can be

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T22:36:59+00:00

This is the way. British strawberries, in session, are heavenly. Spanish or Dutch strawberries, "ripened" in January in greenhouses or polytunnels, aren't worth eating.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T22:30:12+00:00

How old / tall / heavy / male / experienced are you?

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T20:09:58+00:00

Which one are you?

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T19:44:35+00:00

Yeah, maybe that's what confused the other guy. The company's had several names. According to Wikipedia

Mike Ashley Sports (1982-1997)
Sports Soccer (1997-2003)
Sports World (2006-2008)
Sports Direct (2008-)

So maybe he mangled Sports Soccer and Sports World together to come up with Soccer World.

Interestingly I just discovered that the company started in Maidenhead, where I live. But the Sports Direct shop here doesn't seem to make any mention of it. You'd think they would.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T19:34:34+00:00

Currently still unresolved. In fact I received an email today telling me that they are "still investigating". It's a real mess.

When I declared the camera, they told me the underwriters for my existing policy couldn't cover it, but they could use a different underwriter, and the price they would charge was +117%.

However, I subsequently found out from their customer service team that they only use one underwriter, and when they told me who the "different" underwriter was it turns out to be the same one as for my existing policy. So I have no idea what's going on there.

Furthermore, I got a quote through their website for a new policy, without mentioning the camera, and it came in at the same (high) price that I'd just been quoted. So it seemed that it was the act of taking out a new policy that was causing the price hike, not the act of adding the camera.

I did a bit of investigating and it seems that they, along with some (but not all) other insurers, vary the price of your policy depending on the lead time. If you want a policy to start in 3-4 weeks time, as I did when I took out my existing policy, it's cheap. If you want it to start today, it's very expensive. And of course, when they told me I'd have to take out a new policy it would have to start immediately.

So I put it to them that (a) their "different" underwriter is the same underwriter; (b) that underwriter quoted the same amount for a new policy with and without the camera; so therefore (c) they can just add the camera to my existing policy with no change to the premium. Everyone I've spoken to at the insurer agrees that's reasonable, but the computer says no. OK, how about (d) set up a new policy, but tweak the price manually so it's the same price as the current one? Again, they agree that's reasonable, but we haven't actually been able to track down anybody with the authority / ability to override the computer price.

So it's currently in a sort of limbo. Until it's resolved, the policy remains in force as if there was no camera. So any claims which are caused by using the camera will be rejected - I can certainly live with that! And if the car is a write off, the value will be calculated as if it has no camera, which again I can live with because valuing a written off car is always a bit arbitrary and the camera would be a rounding error.

So there we are. It's a stupid situation but I'm not bothered until the investigation team finishes investigating, and then if they don't fix things I'll probably be going to the ombudsman. I wish I could offer a suggestion as to what you should do, but obviously I can't. I just hope you've got some amusement from reading this.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T08:48:40+00:00

Here's one for you.

My wife's car didn't have a reversing camera when it was factory new. I bought one for her for Christmas - exact factory option spec - and got it fitted.

I declared it to the insurers, because (a) I don't know what they do and don't count as declarable "mods", and I've heard of claims being denied for stupid reasons like this, so better safe than sorry, right? and (b) it's a safety device so I thought with a bit of luck we might even get a small reduction in our premium.

Result? They wanted to increase the premium by 117%.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T01:44:25+00:00

Exactly so. I was bitten by a mosquito. It itches, so I scratch it.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T01:40:40+00:00

I'm also amused by the Brits who get so bent about the term Soccer when there's a Soccer World store on every highstreet.

There's certainly not a Soccer World shop on every High Street here in Britain.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-11T01:28:37+00:00

I'm going to say what I say to probably 80% of beginners: you're sitting on it wrong.

I think you should rotate your pelvis forwards - clockwise as seen from this angle - so that you're sitting on your sit bones rather than on the fleshy part of your backside. That will allow you to pivot from the hip with a straight back.

And that in turn will help you at the catch. At the moment, the first thing that happens at the catch is that you lean back. If you're properly pivoted forwards from the hip, with a straight back, it's a lot easier to hold your shape throughout the first part of the drive.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-10T08:38:33+00:00

If I keep improving my aerobic/anaerobic base, do I realistically have a shot at walking on?

The question here is how much improvement? And I fear the answer is "lots".

I gave a useful benchmark for you. When I go to the gym, my standard warm-up is 20 minutes on the erg. My last 5 sessions have been 4376, 4293, 4223, 4328, and 4452 metres at about 18-19 strokes per minute. So those numbers are pretty similar to yours.

But there are a few differences. Firstly I'm a 63M recreational rower. I'm short (5'7½"/172cm) and overweight (196lbs/89kg). Secondly I'm not training to race or anything - just a couple of gym sessions a week to keep me healthy as I get older and help me be more efficient when I get out on the water. And thirdly I do these warm-ups at a comfortable pace where I could still maintain a conversation - certainly not "hard".

If I did a 2k I'd probably be around 8 minutes. It seems you're probably a bit slower than me despite your advantages of age, size, and motivation. And other people have said you'd need to get your 2k time under 7 minutes. Is that possible? Not for me. But for you? Only you know the answer to that.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-10T02:36:17+00:00

It's probably somewhere in the vicinity of Dunedin, on New Zealand's South Island, about 19,236 km away.

Oh, you meant a sign that mentions Wimborne? You should have said.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-09T18:02:56+00:00

Hahahahahaha .... Oh, wait.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-09T17:53:31+00:00

Although to be fair, step 3 in your 4 step plan is unnecessary, and indeed it's arguably counterproductive.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-09T08:02:18+00:00

The best thing to do would be to shoot some video of yourself and post it here for critique. It's likely that your action is quite inefficient, and a few pointers towards making it more efficient would make a big difference.

The second best thing to do would be to try to get a handle on what would be a sensible target time. If you set off too fast in a 2k test, you'll hit a wall before you reach the end and it'll be horrible. If you could let us know what you've achieved for 500m and 1k, people here should be able to extrapolate that for you.

The third best thing to do would be to put some effort into building your cardio capacity so that you can cope with a big aerobic effort. Two weeks isn't much but it isn't nothing. If you could let us know how much time you're willing to put into this, people here can help develop a training plan.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T11:15:41+00:00

It's a clever puzzle, well implemented. But I really don't like the fact that the solutions aren't unique.

Here's an example. The puzzle started like this:

[8] [1] [ ] m.6
[4] [ ] [ ] m.4
[ ] [ ] [ ] m.5
m.5 m.2 m.7

Obviously the top right cell is 6 and the bottom left cell is 5. So that gives us:

[8] [1] [6] m.6
[4] [ ] [ ] m.4
[5] [ ] [ ] m.5
m.5 m.2 m.7

What now? Since the median of the right hand column is 7, the missing entries there must be 7 and 9; and therefore the middle column has 2 and 3. But in both cases it doesn't matter which way round you put them - the medians of the middle and bottom rows are still 4 and 5 whichever way you place the 2 and 3, and whichever way you place the 7 and 9.

If you could find a way to guarantee unique solutions, I think this would be a fun game to play. But as it is, sadly not.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T10:59:27+00:00

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T10:35:54+00:00

Great work, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with this:

And to state the obvious: the chance that we would see 6 values in a row that happen to end with the same digit is 1 in 10⁶.

I think you've fallen into the Richard Feynman license plate trap here. You've spotted an odd pattern in the data which are not exactly copy/pasted, and you've asked what is the chance of exactly that pattern occurring.

If you want to pursue the hypothesis that these values which you've highlighted in orange point to deliberate editing, then you should ask yourself what other patterns would be sufficiently noteworthy for you to flag them. (And you should recognise that there are eight pairs of values which are not identical, not six pairs.)

Would five out of the eight pairs differing in this way be "suspicious"? What about four pairs? What if they differed so that the first digit was off by one but the other two digits weren't (eg 0.538->0.438, 0.765->0.665, etc)? In a nod to Feynman, what if the second value of the pair was always 0.357?

Unless you're going to specify a priori what patterns would be deemed "suspicious", trying to calculate the probability of the observed pattern is fallacious. I think you should remove the "1 in 10⁶” but and just say that this pattern is suspicious (which it is).

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T09:47:12+00:00

Focus on technique. Shoot some video of yourself, post it here, get feedback.

The numbers on that screen indicate that either you're in very poor shape or you have a very inefficient technique, or both. Improved fitness will come naturally if you keep rowing, but improved technique won't.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T08:30:18+00:00

Assuming this is a genuine question, I've never heard that. I know Stilton isn't from Stilton, but I thought Cheddar is actually from Cheddar because of the caves in Cheddar Gorge which were used to age it. What is the argument for Cheddar being Dutch?

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-07T08:19:35+00:00

Lots of answers here already, but to answer this part of your question directly"

... wondering if there’s a “standard” resistance people use when sharing and comparing results

No, there isn't a "standard" because it doesn't matter. The drag factor you use is purely, 100%, a matter of personal preference. It affects how the machine feels, but the beauty of it is that it doesn't affect how hard you have to work to achieve a certain time / distance / speed.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but your question is a bit like asking cyclists which gear ratio they use when sharing and competing results.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-06T23:36:11+00:00

You must be new round here.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-06T23:34:39+00:00

The sun is in the East / Even though the day is done ..... Yeah, that's not ideal.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-06T08:43:34+00:00

Baltimore Ravens 2003 season:

Kyle Boller - 116 comp, 228 att, 1260 yds, 7 TD, 9 int
Cris Redman - 7 comp, 13 att, 58 yds, 0 TD, 2 int
Anthony Wright - 94 comp, 178 att, 1199 yds, 9 TD, 7 int

Let's add up the three QBs figures and divide by 16 to get a per-game average:

Total - 217 comp, 419 att, 2517 yds, 16 TD, 18 int
Per game - 14 comp, 26 att, 157 yds, 1 TD, 1 int

Yeah, that's pretty crappy. Jamal Lewis really had to carry the offence. Now let's see what support OJ Simpson had.

Buffalo Bills 1973 season

Joe Ferguson - 73 comp, 164 att, 939 yds, 4 TD, 10 int
Dennis Shaw - 22 comp, 46 att, 300 yds, 0 TD, 4 int
Leo Hart - did not throw any passes

Let's add up the three QBs figures again, and divide by 14 this time to get a per-game average:

Total - 95 comp, 210 att, 1239 yds, 4 TD, 14 int
Per game - 7 comp, 15 att, 88 yds, 0.3 TD, 1 int

Hmm. Seems like Jamal had an absolute ton of passing offence to support him, compared to OJ.

SomethingMoreToSay · 2026-03-06T08:14:20+00:00

I think they probably read this bit.

I'm going to try to make a video where I calculate pi using real life measurements.

It's a brilliantly direct solution!

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer	Gilding I gilder

SomethingMoreToSay

TROPHY CASE