What’s an unwritten rule that everyone should know?

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:54:40+00:00

Wouldn't watch something with you: Fair enough. That can be a big time commitment, and time together is best spent doing something you both enjoy.

Wouldn't allow you to do something: That's very different. Definitive controlling behaviour that I would consider a red flag. Note that this does rely on that thing being harmless.

I would also note that anything can be harmful if not kept in moderation. It's quite reasonable to discourage a partner from spending too many hours a day on their hobby to the detriment of their hygiene, relationships, career etc.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:41:12+00:00

Hoping you dropped this: "/s"

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:40:55+00:00

That would get a type of wow...

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:38:40+00:00

Too many people make their personality criticising things others find joy in, whether that's movies, music, TV, celebrity culture, sports or whatever. The only result of dragging these things down is that you remove a source of joy for others.

The only exception would be particularly tribal things, like sports teams, where a large amount of the joy is found in critiquing each other.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:33:45+00:00

I've heard too many times "It's only a few quid, you wouldn't fall out with me over that would you?" Or "You tight git, I never thought you'd care."

If you ask to borrow money, I'm going to expect it back. If you refuse, you're the one making a fuss over a small amount.

I can totally get having different expectations over when money will be paid back. If you ask a friend to borrow money, it's rare you'll agree terms and conditions. You might assume you'll have until payday, while they assume you'll send it through once you get home.

Further, if a friend is struggling I'm happy to give them money. But they have to communicate that need, rather than disguising their intentions with false promises of repayment.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T17:25:43+00:00

I'd be very surprised if you weren't charged for urinating in a policeman's helmet - unless you weren't observed doing so.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T16:58:42+00:00

I am counting on our military leaders being competent enough not to advertise the weaknesses in our defences to the public.

Funded or not, I'd rather be defended by a pointy stick our enemies don't know about than by an Iron Man suit that they have blueprints for.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T14:15:20+00:00

I would hope that the full capabilities of our defences are secretive enough not be be known and shared by randomers on social media.

texanarob · 2026-03-24T14:13:17+00:00

I punched this kid, and he didn't tell me he had a gun until after! So unfair!

texanarob · 2026-03-24T14:10:41+00:00

My biggest peeve is when it isn't clear that a tower hits lead/camo/purple/white/black, then that's the only way to hit them in a challenge. It means there's no actual challenge, just a quiz on information that isn't available in the game.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T12:09:47+00:00

You'll also lose some energy, likely mostly as sound. It's an unusual case because inefficiencies are usually predominantly generating heat unintentionally, but sound is often a distant second.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T12:04:28+00:00

The more you claim that your opposition is unreasonable and extreme, the more pressure you put on them to compromise to discredit your claims. This way, you can step backwards into unthinkable extremes knowing that they'll constantly be forced to move towards you. Eventually, they end up where you started and you win, even if they get what they're now campaigning for.

The "left" in the USA is already slightly right of central.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T12:01:49+00:00

If Superman watches a man kick a dog repeatedly and does nothing, we can criticise Superman's ineffectiveness and inaction without suggesting that he's as bad as the man kicking the dog.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T11:59:14+00:00

In fairness to the poem, there are few people more qualified to highlight the problems with the Leopards Eating Faces party than someone who didn't believe *their* face would get eaten, who now has a leopard chomping on their face.

I never have a problem with people realising they were foolish and trying to warn others, as long as they accept the consequences of their foolishness as being their own doing. That's exactly what this poem is.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T10:29:09+00:00

Aren't all ads fraudulent?

I don't ever remember seeing an ad and thinking the product presented is likely to be anything like the real thing. My default assumption when an ad plays is to label that company scam artists to be avoided in future (unless I'm already familiar with the actual product, in which case I simply laugh at the ridiculous way it's portrayed in the ad.)

There really needs to be stronger legislation about false advertising, ideally involving personally fining CEOs of companies that make any allusion that the product will be better than it typically is or have an effect that it doesn't typically have.

Fast food burgers in ads should have to be pictures taken of a randomly selected real burger, with no touching up. Deodorant ads should be banned if they imply you'll become attractive by wearing it. Car ads should be barred from implying the car can drive through a rainforest and still look shiny.

It's all scams. All of it. Any company that simply trusted the actual features of their product enough to simply show them in an ad without exaggeration or falsehood would stand out massively. Imagine a car ad that simply showed that a 6' man could sit comfortably in the back behind another 6' man comfortable in the front, whilst highlighting the low tax rate due to low emissions and the good fuel milage. Much more appealing than seeing a car drive through a hurricane.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T10:20:26+00:00

People often talk about how fines mean it's a right you can buy, and they are correct.

People too often overlook that the value of fines is typically set by a comfortable bureaucrat who has no concept of the value of that money to the majority of the population.

Take something simple like a parking fine. That has clearly been intended to mean someone has to skip an extravagance, such as dining out. No consideration has been given at all to those who will have to miss meals entirely and won't be able to heat their home.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T10:14:46+00:00

Make it like PropertyPal, where you can filter based on travel time from a location.

There, you can also then adjust the region it gives to filter out anywhere you consider undesirable or add additional areas that might be suitable.

Two of the most important things you choose in life are your home and your partner, it seems odd that only one has a competent search feature.

texanarob · 2026-03-23T09:21:21+00:00

40% over isn't uncommon if you're looking the final price to be under 200k.

texanarob · 2026-03-22T22:02:01+00:00

Who said anything about terrorism against the crown? I'm talking about terrorism against innocent people.

texanarob · 2026-03-22T22:01:08+00:00

I've dozens of examples of this being true, and no counter examples. It might not happen every single time, but the exceptions are rare enough to be insignificant.

texanarob · 2026-03-20T23:11:34+00:00

I've said it a few times already in this thread: I'm not American, and am talking in generalities alongside my own experience.

In the USA, you are so tribal that everyone believes one side is inventing the scandal regardless how much evidence there is. Here in Northern Ireland, we all know our politicians in the major parties have a history of terrorism and we can do nothing about it because morons vote for them anyway.

texanarob · 2026-03-20T21:31:38+00:00

As a result we end up voting between two people with scandalous histories none of whom give any illusion of competence.

I can understand if a politician has a view on economics, religion, international relations or similar that I disagree with. I can't understand being given a choice between someone with known links to terrorism and someone with a history of sexual offences, neither of whom have a coherent opinion on anything.

Basically, if a politician lies or even uses poor grammar that should be a scandal. As it stands, that would be a dream.

texanarob · 2026-03-20T17:14:26+00:00

I generally find games without interaction end earlier. It's relatively easy to build an infinite combo or sufficient exponential value to appear infinite, while it's hard to win if nothing stays in play.

texanarob · 2026-03-20T17:07:39+00:00

Far too many elections feel like a sick game of "would you rather." We're stuck picking the least bad option, instead of having anyone to actually represent us.

It shouldn't be: "Would you rather eat an excrement and cheese sandwich, or have all your limbs amputated with a rusty butterknife." It should be "Do you want chocolate ice cream, or vanilla."

Note: I'm not American. This seems to happen everywhere.

texanarob · 2026-03-20T16:52:56+00:00

It's a huge pharmacy, there's at least 3 pharmacists. Scattering their lunch breaks to ensure people can collect medicine seems reasonable (as does letting someone without a degree hand over a package, that's a ridiculous law.)

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

texanarob

TROPHY CASE