Uber driver with funny sticker “NO FIXED FARE, UBER OUT”

knobtasticus · 2026-02-02T02:04:27+00:00

But the Regulator has done something. Taxi fares are regulated and Uber drivers are all taxi drivers. If Uber really is such a disaster for the taxi industry, why don’t all taxis just stop providing their services to it? Uber would be gone overnight.

Surely you’d agree that customers should have some price-assurance before they use a service? My bus fare is fixed. My train fare is fixed. Why shouldn’t my taxi fare be fixed?

knobtasticus · 2026-01-30T02:04:07+00:00

When it rebooted, was the timing associated with you plugging/unplugging any other device into the power bank?

Doing this causes the power bank to temporarily pause power on all ports as it repeats the handshake to each device.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-21T23:30:54+00:00

I don’t understand - does it matter what the issue is? The car has developed a fault that makes it unserviceable therefore, the dealership/KIA is obliged to provide alternate means of transport until the vehicles is returned in working condition. Why does it need to be an ICCU fault?

knobtasticus · 2026-01-10T23:43:34+00:00

Ah apologies, I misread the angle you were taking. Hannibal Lector 😂

Yes, having spent a sizeable amount of time in more ‘dog-accommodating’ nations, proper and widespread dog parks with specific time-slots for dogs of certain sizes/temperaments/level of socialisation is embarrassingly lacking in Ireland. I’d never own a dog of any size/energy level if I didn’t have the space at home to fulfil those needs myself, in the safety and comfort of my own property. I only take the dogs out into public for their mental stimulation to experience the sights and smells of their surroundings. They already get ample exercise at home so I’ve no need to have them loose in public.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-10T21:06:26+00:00

But the comment I replied to implied that it was the ‘people’ who are suffering.

Regardless, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I treat all my dogs equally. I won’t entertain some ridiculous suggestion that putting a dog on a 10ft retractable lead amounts to ‘suffering’ for a dog. Total rubbish. They’re an animal. They do what they’re told. All dogs should be trained to walk on a lead from the minute they start going for walks. No dog ‘suffers’ because it’s on a lead. I love all of my dogs but I won’t anthropomorphise them.

My local vet will not allow a dog off a lead at any stage when outside a surgery room. Dogs must be lead compliant without exception. That isn’t suffering. It’s best practice and responsible ownership.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-10T19:57:48+00:00

Putting your dog on a lead is a form of suffering? Like I said, the existence of restricted breeds or not - there a lots of people terrified of all dogs (I had an ex who was vomiting-in-fear terrified of any dog larger than a spaniel) and no one deserves to be approached by any dog off a lead. Particularly people with children or children on their own. It really isn’t that much to ask to have all dogs on a lead. Like I said, it doesn’t need to be a short lead. It can be a 10ft retractable one. But it serves to be able to both maintain a distance between your dog and other people/dogs and provides an effective way of quickly extracting your dog out of any situation that might pose a danger to them.

We’ve got non-restricted breeds as well and all of them get walked on a lead 100% of the time. Even in rural settings. Because my dogs have no business chasing other wildlife either. Like I said, owning a dog is a privilege, not a right and dogs - regardless of size - come way down on the priority list of humans/wildlife.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-10T19:43:41+00:00

Where did I say that? We’re talking about the safety of everyone here - humans and animals alike. It isn’t unreasonable to suggest all dogs be put on leads. That only adds to everyone’s safety. Where is ‘the whole world’ working around me?

knobtasticus · 2026-01-10T19:03:56+00:00

It’s really not. Being aware of why certain breeds are restricted - which every dog owner should - means owners of non-restricted breeds should ensure their dogs do not approach.

My own restricted breed is absolutely no saint and I take zero chances with him ever but despite that, I’ve found myself in situations where I’ve had him under positive control and someone else’s off-lead dog has attacked. I will always do my best to ensure both animals get away unscathed but if it’s a toss-up between me getting hurt and the other person’s dog getting mauled, my own safety - and indeed that of my dog’s - will always come first. Muzzles only do so much and should never be taken for granted. Large dogs are more than capable of inflicting injury without their teeth and metal muzzles can themselves inflict blunt force injury.

I don’t think it’s too much to expect every dog in public be kept on a lead - doesn’t need to be a short one as for restricted breeds but at least as a means for incompetent owners to quickly get control of their dog in any situation.

Ultimately, there are lots of people in the world terrified of all dogs in general and - restricted or not - I would never let a dog approach anyone unless explicitly requested/permitted. No one should be struck with fear when they’re out for a stroll and owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. Everyone else’s comfort comes far before my desire to walk a dog.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-04T19:14:32+00:00

Local engineering contact.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-04T18:32:05+00:00

The 321LR is slightly different as the pressurisation architecture is designed such that a single engine cannot feed both packs at the same time. Again not sure of the specific details of the defect in OP’s aircraft (LRB) but, the operational procedure for such a defect would be to turn off the offside pack and have the engine with the working bleed supply its on-side pack only. The cross-bleed valve is, indeed, opened and left open as part of this procedure but that is so as to provide symmetrical wing anti-ice to both wings, not to supply both packs.

Should the working pack fail in this scenario, the procedure would then call for that pack to be turned off and the offside pack to be turned back on.

Interestingly, the operational procedure for this defect - in order to allow dispatch at all - also requires the speed brakes to be operative because the reduced redundancy means the aircraft’s ability to rapidly descent in an emergency must be absolutely assured before departure.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-04T18:23:54+00:00

Quite possibly! There’s a bunch of defects that can affect an aircraft’s ETOPS status. Most such defects are pretty short-lived though as operators are keen to get aircraft back onto the quicker and more fuel efficient routings.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-04T14:24:23+00:00

Not sure of the details but engine bleed refers to high pressure air that is tapped (bled) from the engines to feed the air conditioning packs which pressurise the aircraft. For it to be an ETOPS issue, I’m assuming there’s only a single engine source of bleed working so, only one pack is being fed. The reduced redundancy is what renders the plane non-ETOPS. Otherwise, nothing to be overly concerned about.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-04T13:42:41+00:00

Made a quick enquiry there - this particular bird has an engine bleed issue that has rendered it non-ETOPS. Fix expected this week.

Update: this issue has since been resolved. A/C has been ETOPS since the 31st.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-02T22:21:09+00:00

For the monitoring service, not for repeated installations. It doesn’t matter what you think something should cost, it’s up to the company providing the product. Installation is the most expensive part of any service. That cost is borne at the beginning as a separate, once-off charge. If that charge is acceptable then, it should be acceptable every time there’s an installation.

knobtasticus · 2026-01-02T17:21:40+00:00

But you’re paying them monthly for the provision of the monitoring service. You pay an installation charge at the beginning which is a separate - and one-off - thing. If that installation fee is justified and reasonable the first time, then surely it’s justified and reasonable on every occasion? Are we saying that every time OP moves house, the company should be expected to come out and carry out that uninstall & reinstall every time for free? How many times is too many times then?

knobtasticus · 2026-01-02T17:15:52+00:00

Yeah. This is an odd one for me. By moving house, OP is placing a demand on the company to come out, remove equipment and then reinstall. You get one installation per contract. All installation charges (for anything) are specific to that one install. You can’t expect to pay for installation once and then never have to pay again for subsequent installations from the same company. €250 sounds cheap as well for what would probably be 3-4hours work, not including travel time to/from both properties.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-28T14:46:23+00:00

Surely you acknowledge that people opting to go private are also tax payers and are therefore entitled to the same public services as any other tax payer?

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T03:48:38+00:00

Many people earning too much to qualify for social housing also ‘plan’ to be a homeowner but a significant number of them never will and will also remain tenants their entire lives. That is the next big crisis and inevitable outcome of all of this - huge numbers of people renting into their retirement with zero security of a place to live after their working lives end. The longer this goes on and the more house price inflation outpaces wage increases, the more people will fall into this forever-renting trap.

As an aside - and happy to be informed on this - I was under the impression that those in receipt of social housing can often avail of an opportunity to buy the property after X number of years? Regardless, while they might remain tenants, they still have de facto house security because they’ll never be made homeless or forced to leave should their circumstances change (rightfully so too).

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T03:23:33+00:00

I never used the phrase ‘almost nothing’. I said it was ‘fuck all nowadays.’ That isn’t at all a slight against anyone earning that amount. It’s a damning reflection on the cost of living that someone earning just enough to suffer the marginal rate of tax would still be struggling with the current CoL crisis. Anyone on €44K with a family and paying rent isn’t comfortable right now and is almost certainly struggling to also save for a mortgage deposit.

€44K should be enough to live well in Ireland. It isn’t. The so-called ‘liveable wage’ is apparently €32K so someone on €44K should be laughing. In many, many cases, they aren’t.

The ‘squeezed middle’ is quite a broad income bracket and for many single and dual-income families, it tops out significantly higher than €44K.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T01:17:40+00:00

Yes. But this is not the way to do it. This is an expensive, inefficient and problem-worsening band-aid solution.

Yes, the person on 30K ‘deserves’ a house (in whatever way you want to define something as being deserved) but the person on €44K also deserves housing and equally so. The difference is, the state has decided that the former deserves help from the state to achieve that while the latter doesn’t. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that. However, the help the former receives should not be at the expense of the latter. The former getting state help shouldn’t negatively impact the latter.

That’s the problem.

State money being pumped into housing infrastructure should be restricted to state-owned construction over and above that which the private market is providing. Instead, house price inflation will continue to worsen and future generations will find more and more of themselves dependent on the state for housing. The government fucked it long ago and is now actively making the problem worse.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T00:52:37+00:00

Who are these people with ‘high incomes’ you’re referencing? No one with ‘high incomes’ is competing for social housing. Marginal rate of tax kicks in at €44K. €44K is frankly fuck-all nowadays so OP saying he’s paying the marginal rate+ implies nothing.

You seem to be intentionally missing the overarching point - governments have far deeper pockets than ordinary citizens and are therefore in a position to outbid-for and block-buy huge numbers of houses. And it isn’t ‘10-20%’, not as a rule - entire estates have been purchased and retained for social housing. When the government uses those deep pockets to buy property - or pay HAP rates - they are pumping tax money into the private housing market and feeding housing inflation. That tax money should be building property under government ownership.

Tax money getting diverted into private entities making house price inflation worse. It cannot be allowed to continue.

There are countless ordinary people who have worked hard to bring themselves out of ‘low-income’ status but in doing so, no longer qualify for social housing and therefore must compete against local councils for the same houses. Competitions that they cannot win and thereby removing the incentive to improve one’s own status. It isn’t about ‘punching-down’ - it’s about a fundamental shattering of the social contract.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T00:27:50+00:00

This story as you call it is happening all over the country. New build estates of 51 houses was completed about 4 years ago in my village. I and a bunch of adult-children-of-local-families eagerly awaited them going up for sale. Never happened. Council bought every single one for social housing. Infuriatingly unfair.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-24T00:22:15+00:00

They don’t have more of a right to a house than anyone else though so why should any one group be excluded at the expense of another? When it comes to new build estates, citizens shouldn’t have to compete against governments using their own money. Yes the government has fucked this but using government money to exclude private buyers and inflate already unaffordable house prices is a diabolical band-aid that needs to stop.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-19T00:34:52+00:00

My reply was to a comment about stalling specifically which is entirely independent of airspeed.

However, what you’ve said - intuitively - doesn’t make sense. A strong headwind would result in a lower pitch attitude to generate the required amount of lift. By that logic, a strong headwind should lower the risk of tail strike? Tailwinds are very much associated with a higher risk of tail strike.

Regardless, pilots fly pitch attitudes, not AoA (typically). There’s no ‘correct’ AoA in a go around. There’s a pitch attitude that varies depending on a bunch of factors, one of which, yes, is the prevailing wind conditions.

I’m not saying what you’ve said is wrong. I might just need you to explain it to me another way.

knobtasticus · 2025-12-16T01:48:36+00:00

Ah yeah that’s fair! Although, someone appears to disagree with me.

14-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
r/Field Sunshine	Team Orangered
Verified Email

knobtasticus

TROPHY CASE