I hear the complaints about incremental updates and not enough reason to upgrade. My opinion is that it doesn't need any updates as it's nearly perfect the way it is. What it needs is a 3 year release cycle instead of yearly. Less e-waste and more visible spec change.
No, people just need to learn self control. You don’t need a new laptop every year or every 2 years.
My current MBP is nearly 8 years old, cost $4,500, and is finally in need of replacement. I just purchased a $4,300 M3. Why should I have to purchase a 3 year old M1
I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?
That's why I also said "the way things work here" because it's a cultural thing; you just don't mess with worker's right in Europe. It might not be against the law, but it's not a normal practise. From what I found online last time this happened in Sweden was in 1920s. I'm not from Sweden but I am European and I know that unions and strikes are a normal thing and everybody supports them.
If Elon tries to forcefully break up a strike, he will just amass the wrath of other unions and the entire Swedish population turning an issue of collective agreement into a political problem. I honestly don't see this ending well for Tesla.
The US is one of the few places which allows this. (That is a "Today I Learned".)
If I read https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%C3%85karpsla... right, Sweden got rid of the legal right to employ strikebreakers in 1938 when they switched to the "Swedish Model" based more on collective bargaining than on government involvement.
Someone used to the US laws should be aware that different countries don't use the same legal framework.
From what I understand, there's no law because there's no need for a law as strikebreaking isn't common, and these sorts of issues are covered by industry-wide trade union agreements and protected by the broad right to strike.
While in the US employing strikebreakers has been increasingly common since the 1970s, and there is only a much more limited right to strike. (Eg, sympathy strikes, like the Danish McDonald's one mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036371 , are illegal in the US due to the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act.)
The US court interpretation encourages strike breaking. For example, when combined with the decertification provision of Taft-Hartley Act, you can hire strikebreakers then have the new population of workers decertify the union. (This is one of the examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Mackay_Radio_%26_Teleg.... .)
So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker.
These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
To give what I think is a reasonable analogy, Sweden does not have a minimum wage law while the US does. Instead, minimum wages are determined by union agreements on an industry sector basis.
A US employer who enters Sweden and offers a position for only $5/hour might consider that reasonable, as there is no law against it. However, they would (as the Denmark/McDonald's case shows) be subject to industry action that is prohibited in the US.
Maybe Im dense, but I miss the point of what you trying to say.
Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
>So even if strikebreaking isn't illegal in either country, the legal framework which protects strikebreaking is stronger in the US, and the legally allowed consequences of strikebreaking are weaker. These is part of the legal framework which a US employer should learn and understand when expanding to Europe.
It seems that you are still assuming that Tesla doesn't know the law, and will suffer legal consequences. What are the "legally allowed consequences" of strikebreaking in Sweden?
The point is there is a big difference between "legal consequences" and the "legally allowed consequences" I described.
I think sympathy strikes are legal in Sweden. That makes them a legally allowed consequence. If I understand the Denmark McDonald's case correctly, then the Swedish equivalent of the Teamsters could decide to not deliver parts to a Tesla repair shop.
> Everything seems to indicate that strikebreakers are legal in Sweden.
Yes. Why is it so important to only look at what the law says about strikebreakers? There's also the overall economics.
As I understand it, in the US you can fire someone on strike and replace them with a permanent worker, so long as it is justified economically and not due "anti-union animus" - and the latter is hard to prove.
As I understand it, going on strike in Sweden not considered grounds for terminating the employment.
So if the employer hires a strike breaker - which is legal! - then once the worker ends the strike, the Swedish employer must continue to employ the worker and the strike breaker, under much stronger employee protections than in the US. That makes it expensive to hire strike breakers.
This makes the US a much easier place to use strikebreakers, even before considering its combination with anti-worker laws like Taft-Hartley.
I still dont see where you think Tesla has made a misinformed calculation, error, or mistake. Are you claiming the managers at Tesla dont know the cost of hiring a strike breaker?
Furthermore, much of what you said is not true with respect to the US.
Striking workers can almost never be fired in the USA [1]. The only "difference" is you dont have to keep on the strike breakers.
Tesla can only hire strike breakers on their own premises. Sympathy strikes will hit their supplylines latest next week and then there will be no more new teslas, no more spare parts. The union is expecting Tesla to pull out of Sweden before signing a contract.
The workers get 100% payed while striking, and the unions coffers are deep, they can wait.
To be clear, the main thing I am objecting to in these posts is the sentiment that posters have a superior knowledge, legal or cultrial, that tesla does not.
"I have to say I don't understand Elon's (Tesla's) reaction here. Surely he was advised on Swedish and EU laws and how things work over here before he decided to do business in Sweden?"
I read this as an statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so.
My comments were not concerning Tesla. They were to clarify why the law is relevant, in response to your comment "I was thrown off by you bringing up the law, as it were relevant" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036925 .
>I read this as an statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so.
This is the sentiment I am pushing back on. It seems very arrogant for amateur internet posters to think they know more than the tesla legal team and tesla management team after reading about the topic for 2 minutes.
It is fine to not understand the tesla position, and fine to not not agree with with the morality.
I just dont think it is reasonable for people to assume they are more knowledgeable about the detail simply because they dont understand or agree.
It reduces to "I dont understand their actions, so they must be stupider than me", which I think is a foolish response, but unfortunately quite common.
Tesla is the one with access to their cost modeling for hiring scabs and the legal team. They know the long term costs of union agreements, and if they spread to other countries. They have teams of lawyers.
But no, surely some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
> It seems very arrogant for amateur internet posters to think they know more than the tesla legal team and tesla management team after reading about the topic for 2 minutes.
It seems par for the course for internet posters.
> I just dont think it is reasonable for people to assume they are more knowledgeable
I think the position is "this does not make sense, and I am surprised they did this."
> so they must be stupider than me
Even setting aside how they might be playing 4D chess while us chumps are playing tic-tac-toe, "stupity" is quite different from "ill-informed". It is also different from "arrogant".
Was McDonald's "stupid" in trying to enter Denmark as they did?
> They know the long term costs of union agreements, and if they spread to other countries.
How do you know that?
IF Metall also has lawyers and cost modeling, and more experience with the Swedish labor market.
Aren't you being arrogant in thinking that after 2 minutes of reading about the topic that you know better than them?
Tesla "claims that it doesn't sign collective bargaining agreements anywhere in the world" - are you really sure that decision was made with lawyers present who understood the Swedish labor market?
> some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
Saying "it does not make sense" does not imply the person making the opinion has a better understanding, only that it does not make sense.
I havent seen them personally, but IF Metall gave them a list of demands, so they at least have something.
>IF Metall also has lawyers and cost modeling, and more experience with the Swedish labor market.Aren't you being arrogant in thinking that after 2 minutes of reading about the topic that you know better than them?
Im not making any judgement on IF Metall is right, wrong, or misinformed about anything. I assume they are much more informed than I am, about Swedish law, practice, and Tesla's interests.
>Tesla "claims that it doesn't sign collective bargaining agreements anywhere in the world" - are you really sure that decision was made with lawyers present who understood the Swedish labor market?
I do note that IF Metall didnt make any public statements that it is illegal to bring in strikebreakers. Also, "we wont sign union contracts" isnt a statement on the law. It is a statement about what they do or will do.
> some posters are quick to believes they have a better understanding of the tradeoffs Tesla faces.
>Saying "it does not make sense" does not imply the person making the opinion has a better understanding, only that it does not make sense.
I totally agree, but that is not the only thing I read in these posts. There is usually criticism along the lines of "statement of surprise or astonishment based in the belief that Tesla should know more about labor relations in the EU, but for some reason does not appear so."
The simplest explanation is that they do know about labor relations in the EU, but dont care, are willing to take a risk, think they can change things, or are willing to walk away.
They're kinda illegal in Germany, actually. Based on a legal change in 2017, employers are prohibited from hiring temp workers[0] to take over work from striking employees. There are probably loopholes by having excess temp workers on staff at all times rather than hiring them specifically during a strike but this kind of redundancy is probably frowned upon by shareholders more than the lost productivity of a strike.
[0]: Specifically the law addresses "loan workers" but Germany has fairly strict laws surrounding so-called "independent contractors" in these roles: https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=A%C3%9CG&a=11
Based on the attitude he has shown to compliance at X, I guess he thinks that's not a problem he can't solve by just throwing money at it when push comes to shove. He's infamously been quoted as saying he's okay representing himself in court because he's been sued so many times. I don't think he listens to lawyers unless they can credibly convince him he'll go to prison otherwise.
I take it you missed the part where he shot his mouth off in public about buying Twitter and then got dragged into court and forced to actually buy it.
Tesla is not doing anything illegal as far as I understand.
Looks like there is an expectation that Tesla behaves in a certain way in Sweden because "that's way we've always done it" but that's not in law. Tesla is sticking to the law, as far as I understand.
I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law.
Of course, if workes and unions disagree they can also use their legal rights to try to force Tesla to reconsider. But if they wanted to make all companies behave in a certain way they they should have put that in law.
> I'm a bit uncomfortable about companies being criticised for sticking to the law.
Are you serious? Should you only be allowed to criticise companies (and people?) when they break the law? That would be the end of free speech.
Obeying the law is not synonymous with doing good. The law is the very bottom line, but there's tons of shitty behaviour that's perfectly legal. That doesn't mean it's okay. There are tons of ways in which you can be an asshole without doing anything illegal. You won't go to prison, but people will criticise and avoid you.
Don't make the law your only basis for morality. Laws can be wrong, and they're certainly not enough. Because if you do that, you're basically demanding that every aspect of society be completely legislated, and that's a really bad idea.
There's different levels in criticism. Here Tesla seems to be hammered simply for sticking with the law. This is excessive, IMO: if what they are doing is so outrageous then that should not be allowed in law.
Companies are totally entitled to stick to the law, but they also need to then deal with the fact that narrow compliance with the law might bring them into conflict with parts of society (who in turn might stick to the law in dealing with them).
That said, we already have determined that generally just "sticking to the law" isn't a great defense in all situations anyway.
In a free society based on the rule of law, you cannot demand that anyone goes beyond the law. That's a key principle.
Now, as mentioned, in business other parties can also use their legal rights to bring about negotiations, but let's not depict Tesla as horrible for simply staying within the law...
We have long determined that the rule of law is only one component of a functioning society. There is a lot of stuff beyond the rule of law that makes things work. Anyone not understanding that will have trouble in any society.
How is that in any way mob rule? Is having care and consideration for your fellow citizens mob rule, for example?
What you want is much closer to mob rule, as seen by societies using the law for horrible purposes. Narrow legalistic views allow for the most horrible atrocities.
People can and do demand that - no sure why that is so difficult to understand. And there could be consequences for legal but nasty behavior and those consequences would also not violate any laws. Societies are more than just narrow legalistic machines and checking completely out of broader society is tough/comes with consequences.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what the purpose of a law is and how society works.
Everyone always makes demands that go far above the law. Your legal demand to those around you is "don't murder me, vandalize my things and steal the remains". Your full demand also involves amongst others respectful treatment and consideration, and you don't socialize with those you who treat your poorly even though such treatment was perfectly legal.
The law sets the bar for criminal liability. Society as a whole and its individuals freely set the bar for cooperation. A unionized work force is a social group that has formalized in advance the bar to cooperate with them.
Would you be happy in a society where everybody lies to you all the time? Lying isn't illegal (except under oath), but it would make for a really shitty society.
You can absolutely expect people to do more than just obey the law. Everybody does. Tesla does not, and that may lead Tesla's employees to use their perfectly legal right to strike. And by your standards, you can't demand that they don't strike, because it's legal.
But it's a shitty basis for a relationship. If Tesla wants its workers to do good work for them, they need to listen to their workers.
Solely sticking to the law means paying minimum wage with maximum hours for any work type with no benefits. Negotiation and better terms are not part of the law, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to do without. Union agreements are the standard way to do this here, and refusing to negotiate with unions means refusing to cooperate with the work force market.
They can disagree with unions and the people within the law, just as they can fail as a business from making enemies of the whole country within the law. Civil customs and agreements are not meant to be law.
There is no minimum wage in sweden, because in central european labour fashion they expect labour and companies to cooperate and come to a mutually agreeable and socially beneficial rate.
Although germany recently ended up introducing a legal minimum wage because an other US corp was being too shit about it (I don’t remember if it was amazon or something like walmart).
Sweden does not have a minimum wage because unions are more efficient at ensuring livable wages than legislation and setting a legal minimum wage in this scenario would only benefit the bargaining position of employers by giving them a low-ball reference value.
This is very different from the neoliberal argument against minimum wages which boils down to "if we need to pay workers a livable wage our profit margins would be tighter" or more charitably "if we need to pay workers a livable wage some jobs would become unprofitable and we'd have to lay those people off" (which only holds true when the jobs are non-essential to the company in such a way that laying people off doesn't mean outsourcing them - a lot of low-paying jobs are absolutely essential to business operations but are seen as cost centers because they don't directly contribute to revenue).
The reason the EU is "pushing for minimum wages" is that the EU pushed for the liberalisation of markets in EU countries some twenty years ago (and its various extensions thereof) and that led to an increase in wealth gaps, a loss of income security, gutting of social welfare systems and the proliferation of temp work agencies (which e.g. in Germany were illegal up to that point and offer an easy way to sidestep unions). Minimum wage is a bandaid for the gashing wound left by market liberalisation.
This is beside the point of what a legal minimum wage is, orthogonal with negotiations through unions, and has nothing to do with liberalisation.
There is no reason for Sweden not to have a legal minimum wage. From an outsider's POV this really seems to be psycho-rigid stance "no our system does not need one!" when it actually does not hurt the system or negotiations through unions at all.
In a way, I think what's happening with Tesla is making noise because it's putting them on the spot. They are running around crying "but you can't do that!!" because the fact is that actually Tesla can and that's exposing the weakness of the whole system, which is actually informal and not backed by law at all.
That's not saying that Tesla won't back down and reach a deal with the unions, but they are only doing what they are entitled to do.
Literally everything you say in defense of Tesla and against the striking workers can be inversed without becoming any less true.
As others have pointed out, you seem to misunderstand what laws are and what they are for. They're not special and they're not magic, they're just slightly more rigid frames padded with layers of contracts and ultimately held together by good will.
To put it another way: a law can not stop me from killing you. Gun laws can make it more difficult for me to acquire a suitable weapon to do so, laws requiring the presence of an armed police officer at every corner may make it more difficult without having to deal with the police officer first, or immigration laws may make it more difficult to reach you, and murder being illegal means I'm very likely to suffer consequences after killing you (or after failing to do so if the attempt is illegal) but if I'm in front of you with a loaded gun in my hand, what's stopping me from killing you isn't the law.
I'm not saying Tesla can't do things differently as long as they operate within the law. I'm not even arguing whether its immoral for them to do so[0]. I'm just saying that laws are in the most real sense of the word socially constructed and they're an artefact of society, not the other way around. If laws are in conflict with a society's understanding of justice, eventually the laws will change, one way or another.
[0]: It is, although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone - which is fine, of course, in terms of it being possible for your ethical system to be internally consistent. It just makes me think less of you as a human.
Where did I say anything against striking workers?
I am only pointing out that this is not black and white, and that it is hypocritical to be outraged at Tesla when they are not doing anything illegal, especially when Sweden has historically refused to legislate. But I guess there is also a part of Elon-bashing here.
I don't "misunderstand what laws are", by the way, on the contrary. That's why I don't like mod rule and the replies on this here are actually worrying.
This whole thread is rather low quality, I am afraid to say... "Tesla bad" and that's it, basically.
> although I appreciate that you seem to have constructed an ethical system that isn't built around reducing suffering and increasing happiness for everyone
This has nothing to do with what I wrote and is no more than a thin-veiled ad hominem insult.
Following the law is a very low bar because of that, since employers and unions are supposed to be able to sort things out between themselves. If companies begin to just "stick to the law" the system will break down obviously and a new system will have to replace it.
Yes. That also smacks of corporatism and "old boys club" probably in part because Sweden is a small country and, I imagine, everyone used to know everyone else in business and political circles.
Well nothing in the law say you need to be polite, say hello, thank you and good bye. However good luck having decent collaboration and commercial entries if you yell at everyone and insult them.
Criticism is fine, but I think people should be careful not to conflate the two.
It’s fine to say “I think Tesla should pay more and not hire scabs”
The difference between law and opinion determines how this is enforced.
If actions are illegal, the government forces compliance.
If it is a matter of opinion, then it is up to the involved parties to sort it out themselves. This could be based on their negotiating leverage. Strikes, scabs, boycotts, and sympathy strikes are all fair game
When it comes to ethics, the law should always be seen as the bare minimum, not the bar that we as society should actually expect people and companies to clear.
The problem is that what you call "ethics" is arbitrary. The law applied uniformly is actually a safety net to protect everyone against arbitrary actions.
That's why the rule of law has been so important in the struggle for free societies and liberty.
I don't have an answer. I feel stupid for it. I thought I had all the answers but I didn't think this through. I thought getting rid of cell tower triangulation you can achieve privacy but you'd still need to connect to a satellite with a unique network identifier.
> I don't get easily offended, but I've honestly never seen anything more disgusting in my entire life.
That's a pretty bold statement to make. I don't know what kind of isolated world you live in if you think that a Shell ad is the most disgusting thing you ever saw in your life, but I can give you a hundred examples off the top of my head.
One example that might be related to this subject are working conditions in a lithium mine and the purification process. If people knew the price we pay to drive EVs I'm convinced they would stick with oil. Just because it all happens in China and it doesn't affect us directly, doesn't mean it's any less disgusting.
I am also getting seriously tired of this constant need for censorship which is a contradiction in an open-market economy. You should compete, not sabotage. Instead of looking for ways to ban Shell ads on TV, why doesn't the EV industry offer vouchers too?
I get your point, but I think it's relative to the society which it takes place. Corruption in China? If anything, it's to be expected. It's a literal part of how their political system operates. Corruption in a liberal democracy? Much less acceptable. Of course, that's just one point of view.
As for your comment about EVs, I don't necessarily disagree. My main outrage is that they used children to sell oil.
As for your comment on competition, how can you expect to compete against big oil without regulation, possibly the biggest most powerful industry in the world? The problem is that there is nothing better than oil for what it does, which extends to the other problem that open markets don't care about externalities or planetary boundaries. Which is where people need to come in and put restrictions.
I'm curious, but would you have been against the breaking up of Standard Oil back in the day?
I wasn't talking about corruption in China. I was implying that we outsource the "disgusting" part of producing lithium batteries to get a ready-made product that we can use. In the same way you see a steak in a supermarket rather than years of force-feeding cattle with antibiotics and steroids, you see a Tesla Model 3 driving on the road. You don't see what it takes to produce the "stuff" that powers your car.
I'm not quite sure I get your counter-point to competition. We already heavily regulate the oil industry and subsidise EVs. We tax fossil fuels, we tax ICE cars, we favour EVs in city centres and we even brought in a law to completely ban purchasing new ICE vehicles by year X. If your product is so great, it shouldn't need government intervention to promote it; and Musk's Tesla company is a great example of that.
My original comment addressed the illusion that most Westerns live in and downvoting just proves that. Service-based economies seem to be removed from reality and don't understand the "disgusting" things that have to take place in order for them to function. Like someone said in another thread, if you're really concerned about morals then you will probably have to throw your entire PC out the window.
EDIT:
> I'm curious, but would you have been against the breaking up of Standard Oil back in the day?
You'll never get what you need for EVs without child labor or extremely unhealthy work conditions. Roughnecks and engineers happily go to work to drill for the oil that runs society
That's one very specific example, to a few very specific countries at best.
On the contrary, oil is what's primarily funding the invasion of Ukraine. Think of all the people being killed as a result of that conflict. Or for the civil wars that oil ends up creating i.e. Sudan.
I think ultimately the point is that the 3rd world always loses in the end. They're the ones who suffer most from the ambitions of Western nations, irrespective of their intentions.
Wouldn't it be relatively trivial for someone to compile, compare checksums and call them out?
It's more likely they'd introduce a security flaw that is hard to detect in the OSS code. If someone finds, they'd just claim it was a security incident which is now fixed (and then they'd move to another masked flaw).
I plan to do the exact same thing next year. I don't have all the answers for you, but I would start by asking my LinkedIn network about any contracting jobs <6months and build a CV website. I assume you come from the Tech industry, but a lot can depend on what branch of IT. Developers can get their name out a lot easier than (DevSec)Ops people by contributing to OSS, so give that a try. But either way even a basic Udemy course on the subject can be helpful if you have no idea where to begin.
If you're willing to spending a bit more on a book to support your local bookstore, please use something like https://uk.bookshop.org instead of shopping on Amazon.
I originally heard about Bookshop right here on HN years ago and have been using them since. It's a network of mostly independent bookstores that don't offer print-on-demand service which means you're less likely to get scammed by AI-generated spam.
My instinct was to agree with the comment above, but after giving it a few minutes I think I'd rather have a moderated "soulless" HN.
It seems to me that there is a fine line between innocent jokes and full-blown juvenile behaviour. The amount of effort you would need to invest into sustaining such a place is not worth it, best to just not allow it at all. There are plenty of places where you can get your dose of jokes and fun. One thing that keeps immature and rude people away is precisely the "dullness" that the post above speaks of. People get tired and move on, leaving the place clean and tidy for others to use.
HN has problems of course; downvote bullying is one of them. I'm not saying HN is perfect, but I'd rather not turn it into Reddit or Youtube. So I don't know where this leaves HN between the "pub" and "commercial street".
I come here because it is one of the very few places where you can have interesting discussions and read interesting comments from people with a similar intent and interest.
There are many very different kinds of humor. I think HN generally allows some "insightful" or "never thought of it that way" jokes. Which is probably a narrow subset of humor in general and often requires quite a lot of knowledge about the subject matter.
Only accepting humor if it's sufficiently serious is poser behavior. It reeks of insecurity.
Some of the most brilliant people in history also had an often juvenile sense of humor. Hacker culture was born out of puns and memes and Discordianism and Monty Python references.
But we don't do that here. We're serious people having serious discussions on serious topics. Look at how serious we are. Like that monocle guy meme, except replace the glass of wine with a can of Gamersupps mixed with adderall.
I think some of that stuff also works, if it is at least somewhat ambitious. Say, "Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby" is absurd and humorous but gets a lot of appreciation.
The café was the first pub-like place where people did mostly not drink alcohol. Reportedly, it was an inportant place for the enlightenment period of history. Let's not oversell HN here, though...
Central European cafes sell spirits, too. A cognac makes a fine accompaniment to a coffee. It is foreign franchise coffee places like Starbucks don't sell alcohol at all, and that is a major part of why they feel so foreign.
I prefer it this way. I would love to see original jokes on HN, but the issue is that if you allow "jokes" in general, there's a flood of low-effort repetition of popular phrases or comments where the only "comedic" value is that they've forced something into a cliche sentence structure. That feels more soulless than the way HN is, because comments get so samey. You see the same effect sort of start to creep in on certain political posts, where people feel that they can achieve a cheap sense of attention and comradery for expressing a trite idea instead of a joke (comments that mostly amount to "Elon Musk is a mean man! Who else agrees???")
Everybody knows HS2 will never happen and looking at trains in general maybe it's better that it doesn't. I pay £45 for a return from Biggleswade to London. It's a 45min journey one way, trains rarely come on time and are often slowed down once you pass Stevenage or we have to randomly stop at a red signal. Going back they are often cancelled, almost as a rule they are 10min late when they come and a lot of times they come in 8 carriages instead of 12, so that means standing like a sardine for 45min not being able to breathe normally and when you do you're breathing in someone else's bad breath or afternoon farts. Sometimes going to London if we get stopped at Finsbury Park (because "that's as far as we go sorry") then I have to buy a new ticket to get to Moorgate for example which wouldn't be a problem normally if Moorgate had QR scanners, so instead I have to queue 20min to leave the station, go outside and buy a paper ticket and then go back into the station to get onto the platform. Imagine a train station in central London not having the high-tech that's capable of scanning e-tickets. That's why I can never go to work "on time" but instead have to go an hour early because I never know what's going to happen and leaving work I have to monitor both thetrainline.com and TfL in case a train is cancelled or the Tube is part suspended or heavily delayed. Worst part is I have to pay a small fortune for the privilege.
I would like to mention something else. I recently sold my car and moved to a place close to the train station because "public transport is great, why should I need a car" and it was working great until a few days ago when I was looking to go somewhere for the long weekend. A simple trip from Stevenage which has great train links to a place like Norwich proved impossible. Best trains I could get were one stop and 2h 30min and most had two stops 2h 30min. But those were expensive, between £90 and £130 for a return is a bit much and I got a warning saying due to strikes trains may be cancelled. National Express had no coaches in that direction, taxi was more expensive than trains and there's not a single BigName car hire company that is available in Stevenage and one that I found was not open on Sunday and Bank Holiday so I wouldn't be able to return the car. Had I rented it, it would be £120 for two days with £700 security deposit. With train strikes and ticket prices I didn't want to risk booking a hotel, so I stayed at home because what else am I going to do. Uneless I go to a local supermarket across the road or live in central London, I need a car.
NHS is also public infrastructure but I'd rather not even get into that. I'll just say that I'm convinced the Gov is letting NHS collapse on purpose so that they can pick it apart and privatise it. It's simply impossible that people are actually that incompetent.
> NHS is also public infrastructure but I'd rather not even get into that. I'll just say that I'm convinced the Gov is letting NHS collapse on purpose so that they can pick it apart and privatise it. It's simply impossible that people are actually that incompetent.
I think you're vastly underestimating just how incompetent the large majority of people are (not just NHS/UK, the world, the dumber you are the more you breed etc) - we're being overrun
