I think sutekhs decision on when to return was related to the whole thing about the Susan Triad on Earth being much more powerful due to the doctor coming back a lot. And Ruby isn't departing the show.

Pretty sure ruby is back next season, right? And that the new companion is an addition not a replacement.

Ruby stopped Gwilliam because the doctor was gone. When she saved the doctor by stopping him from stepping on the fairy circle, that timeline was wiped out and ruby had a different life where we now see she meets her parents and doesn't keep travelling with the doctor. But Gwilliam still happens, so the doctor stops him instead.

The operative word is "mandatory". Medical professionals should have a level of discretion available to them, since not all treatments work for all people, even if it wasn't such an ineffective treatment being discussed.

100%. When one of the cons is no meaningful protection against injury, a helmet should be a huge pro. It absolutely saves lives.

peak Aussie humour

That's really unusual. My experience has been the opposite on Linux Mint, most games run the same or better than when I was on windows. I had a little bit of trouble getting world of warcraft to work at first, but I was mostly done playing that anyway. I guess it's all down to what games you play.

Nope, fine with me!

Posted in DD but adding here too - some confirmed departures of some players including Okonkwo, and seems Hein, Walters and Cozier-Duberry might all be exiting too

https://www.arsenal.com/news/22-players-depart-arsenal-end-contacts

https://www.arsenal.com/news/22-players-depart-arsenal-end-contacts in case anyone missed it

Hard agree. I'm loving this season.

Nope, carbon tax is different to carbon offsets. A carbon tax is intended to put an immediate financial burden onto energy producers and/or consumers commensurate to the environmental impact of the power production and/or consumption.

From a corporations perspective, it makes no sense to worry about the potential economic impact of pollution which may not have an impact for decades. By adding a carbon tax, those potential impacts are realised immediately. Generally, the cost of these taxes will be passed to the consumer, affecting usage patterns as a potential direct benefit but making it a politically unattractive solution due to the immediate cost of living impact. This killed the idea in Australia, where we still argue to this day whether it should be reinstated. It also, theoretically, has a kind of anti-subsidy effect. By making it more expensive to "do the wrong thing" you should make it more financially viable to build a business around "doing the right thing".

All in theory. I don't know what studies are out there as to the efficacy of carbon tax as a strategy. In the Australian context, I think we should bring it back. But while I understand why the idea exists and the logic behind why it should work, I don't know how that plays out in practice.

It's an analogy, not an example. We are significantly further from a theoretical, all powerful, all knowing god than we are from ants. The scale of sentience from "inanimate object" to "all powerful god" is likely to have us mistaken for inanimate object. So the analogy serves its purpose, but of course the specifics are different.

There it is!

I don't know if you're interpreting the situation the same as I am. From my perspective, the other commenter and I are having a pretty genuine discussion from two different points of view about the issue. Being ambivalent or apathetic about the inclusion of pronouns in the email signatures does not preclude someone from joining into the conversation, and it also doesn't preclude someone from having a strong opinion about the surrounding context.

They aren't debating whether or not people should be allowed to use any particular pronouns, just stating a pretty valid opinion that it shouldn't be all that important and in their lived experience it hasn't been. For what it's worth, I actually agree with that stance in a certain sense. I don't think we as a society should be placing any stock into gender or sex or sexuality as something that needs to be declared. However, while we do, and while we still have people ostracising and attacking others for being true to themselves, these are issues that need to be tackled. Maybe one day everyone will be on the same page and we can do away with the social construct of gender all together, and maybe we won't.

I really don't see anything in their comments that indicates they are secretly hateful. I especially don't see enough to presume anything about them as an individual.

Very relevant anecdote! There are definitely a lot of different attitudes to names and pronouns outside the context of gender identity. I personally don't really mind when people get my name wrong, I've got a common name spelt a little differently. On the flip side I've worked with "Matt"'s that are very serious about not being called "Mat", and others still who will refuse to respond if you shorten their full name.

That's a good point. Honestly, given other headlines I've seen and also things I've experienced in my own working life it wouldn't surprise me if HR or legal wasn't involved (or were steam rolled by a signature happy leader surrounded by too many yes-men). In saying that, I'd think it's more likely that they were.

This comment will serve as my springboard to go and find my favourite, gender neutral word for "yes-man".

What about people named Ashley. Or Courtney. Or Kelly. Or Sam. Etc.

Plenty of other commenters here who are similarly ambivalent to pronouns have provided reasons that they can understand their practicality if nothing else.

Sure, for a lot of people being misgendered is nothing but a minor inconvenience. For someone who is used to being intentionally misgendered out of spite, such a small change makes a big difference.

If being misgendered in emails was the only problem trans and non-binary people faced in the world, then maybe saying people should get over it is fine. That isn't the case. This is just one of a million things someone in that situation might experience each day that acts as a barrier to participating in society and it is such an easy one to change. In fact, the situation in question was already working fine. Effort was put in, in response to some misguided outrage, to actively prevent the simple solution.

I understand your position of apathy, and maybe if the cost of addressing this particular issue was high, it would make sense to weigh up the solution, but the cost of this is nil so why not facilitate an easier world for all people.

I'm assuming the 10 Bold part only applies to Australia, just poor grammar. Network 10 is just one of the Australian broadcasters, owned by the same company that owns Paramount. It's the worst it's ever been for accessing our local national league, fwiw.

I'm seeing spurious articles saying we're signing Rashford and it better not happen

They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it'd be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don't on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn't even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.

The snippet quoted in the original comments and referenced in subsequent comments refers specifically to the decibel reduction of the frequencies being targeted by the invention, not the volume of the overall sound.