in big cities in the uk (edinburgh, london, etc.) paying with a contactless tap of a debit card each journey will never result in paying more than the cheapest daily, weekly etc. travel pass. single tickets are gbp 2.00 and a daaily pass is gbp 5.00 so individual journeys are recorded and counted (when paid for with the same card, obviously) and at the end of the day, if more than three journeys have been made the total charge for the day is capped at gbp 5.00 - and the weekly total is also capped at the value of a weekly pass, etc.
At least in London it stops there, i.e. the automatic capping doesn't do longer than weekly capping. Also the weekly capping only runs on a fixed Monday to Sunday period, whereas an individually bought weekly travelcard can start on any day of the week.
You put postage on the letter, and the post office stamps the postage (to invalidate the postage). The stamp contains a date. You can't stamp something after having mailed it, that happens as part of the mail submission.
OK, I suppose this could be arranged. The seal has to be over the whole of the "back side" of the envelope, where the flap is. Then put the address and the postage over that, and the post office stamps it.
What confused me was how you would achieve post office stamping over a seal that's on the wrong side of the envelope, where the flap is.
YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT.
YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT.
i remember getting lost in that maze, and didn't realise that the subtle change in wording for the room description was the trick to identifying them, so i dropped objects to help me make a map - which is what you are supposed to do in the other maze
YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL ALIKE.
For those, like myself, who don't quite know enough Greek grammar to work it out properly, I looked up the definition of _Entomophagy_ ... it is derived from the Greek words 'entomon' (insect) and 'phagein' (to eat) and it describes the practice of eating insects; particularly by humans. Good to know in these exciting times!
true. but, it could also mean they are demonstrating traits that make them a more desirable candidate!
for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)
> If you stop to listen to a musician or street performer for more than a minute, you owe them a dollar
if i am a child, with no money, or am un- or underemployed with very little money in the form of disposable income, then this advice is not actually actionable.
not to mention that it is also wrong - you do not owe the street performer anything, no matter how long you stop and listen for. they are not entitled to anything just because they made a choice to perform in a public place. and this is not to suggest i have never, or will not in future, donate to buskers etc. - but it is always an active choice...
The advice was aiming at the moral level. You missed that completely, unfortunately.
> they are not entitled to anything just because they made a choice to perform in a public place.
And you are making a choice of whether or not you support them if you found so much pleasure in listening to them that you chose to spend over a minute listening to them instead of walking past them. You are entitled to just move on. Whether it's the right thing to do is a different question and only for yourself to decide.
no, the bit about having no money was a response to a claim that the advice was 'actionable' and i pointed out a situation where in believed it was not actionable dute to practical financial constraints.
however, my statement about entitlements of the performer being non existant along with the listener having no obligation to pay the performer because they stayed for some amount of time, was made on an moral level. i also believe it is a morally 'good' thing to compensate the performer if they provide you with entertainment, i just do not believe there is any obligation placed on you to do this by the performer. like you say, it is for me alone as the listener to decide. i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
> i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
I suppose the original post does not state the "owing" in an absolute sense but as a recommendation to shape your morals so that they include that it's good to feel that something should be returned. Using the word "owe" for that is suitable, though it does not mean that everybody you see in the situation would "owe" money to the performer.
>no, the bit about having no money was a response to a claim that the advice was 'actionable' and i pointed out a situation where in believed it was not actionable dute to practical financial constraints
The advice is not about giving 1 USD. The advice is to giving something back in return. It does not have to be money. A thank you, applause, a hat off, a flower or a heartly smile will do.
i find it incredibly hard to believe that you "didn't ever do anything wrong on purpose" since you disclosed the fact that you were once a child. are you perhaps meaning something along the lines of "didn't ever think that things i did on purpose were wrong" instead? the thing that upset you when you were punished would then be that your definition of wrongness was different to that of the person punishing you?
most kids want a combination of 1.) approval from parent(s) and 2.) stuff that makes them happy and when 2 conflicts with 1 there can be issues, and it is a rare child that seeks only approval from their parents in all circumstances, as you also point out.
I think a big issue for many autistic people is that they are often perceived as wilfully misbehaving when they they have actually been trying very hard to behave. And this is particularly confusing for autistic children as the rules for them are different to the rules for the adults whose behaviour they are modelling.
That is a great point. I got into a lot of trouble for treating people exactly the way they treated me. (That usually didn't have the intended effect of enlightening them, unfortunately...)
My reasoning was, if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to me. If you claim this behavior is so bad, why do you repeatedly demonstrate it? That too made me lose a lot of respect for parents, teachers etc.
Oof, that rings familiar. I was anti-authoritarian as a kid, but not as a "rebel against the man" or anything so much as the concept of authority from position being completely alien to me. I respected authority from knowledge mind you; someone who knew things I didn't I would listen to, ask questions of, seek to understand; when it became clear I knew more than the teacher, had better understanding, etc, I would disconnect and stop listening to them.
i guess, and intent is important as a factor, at least somewhat mitigating. teaching that actions have consequences based on their outcome, nom matter how well intentioned, is important though, as is the lesson that life is unfair, or at least does not care about what you wanted or intended to happen ;)
i think i actually have a similar problem about asccusations of lying that often get thrown around in arguments etc. when the peoson accused has simply made an error in good faith...
This comment and the previous one in the thread feel very salient, especially in the view of assuming good or bad faith. We've all been children, it's the burden of our human condition, but it feels like assuming others had less-than-pure intent as children because that was how you viewed the world as a child, speaks very directly to the environments in which we're raised along with changes in social mores over time. I'm mostly interested in the dynamic where one person assumes that children act in bad faith, I assume because they think kids are 'trying to get away with it', while the other person points out that from a child's perspective, they are trying their best to model behavior of those around them.
I guess it seems like if you're raised around people who are always acting in bad faith on some level ("Everybody is doing it", "It won't hurt if nobody notices", etc) then you're going to assume that there is always some ulterior motive even without any further evidence.
I had an insight about this which isn't really novel but it finally clicked for me on an experiential level: if you assume bad faith, it makes you feel really bad about the other person, and from that feeling flow words and actions that screw up the relationship (even if your suspicion was completely unjustified and the other person had no ill intentions whatsoever!)
Having mental disabilities and being frequently punished for them is counterproductive.
A lot of ADHD symptoms are identical to lack of maturity or laziness. In my case, being punished for inability to pay attention after school, frequently forgetting things (1), or failing to think about the long term consequences of my actions in the moment was incredibly damaging.
It’s little different from punishing a kid who is missing a leg for “slacking off” in gym class.
1: On top Of ADHD, my mom had and her mom had short-term memory issues due to lacking sufficient enzymes to process folic acid. Me having the same genetic short-term memory issues was treated as laziness by my parents.
How'd you determine the folic acid thing, is that common? My memory is awful (and I have various strange conditions mental and physical), I'm thinking I might benefit from some genetic testing.
The fact that there are two ways to read this comes up in the criminal law context, where there's a question as to someone's mental state.
You read "on purpose" to attach to "act" – as in, "none of my wrong acts were acts I purposely engaged in." (Such statements can often be read this way in the law – it's about whether they intended the act, not the consequences.)
But I think most people stating that sentence intend to communicate that the wrong (or harm) was not deliberate, in that they had innocent motives, or a non-culpable mental state. And that claim shouldn't be all that hard to believe.
