Possibly an MG, possibly a Dacia.

I don't want anything huge, but I don't want a tiny car either, and there's no way my (lifetime career motor mechanic) dad would ever left me touch a French car that he might need to work on.

I live in a tiny house in the UK.

My next car is GUARANTEED to be an all-electric EV when my current 10-year-old ICE car dies (I don't care about hybrids, etc. at all).

How am I doing that? I'm going to put an cheap (~GBP300) EV charger on the outside wall and get it wired in. It doesn't need to be stupendous power, because it can just charge every night.

Which is how the vast majority of people I've seen with them have them installed anyway.

Sorry, but this is just another "but I don't WANT an EV" whinge trying to find some reason. Range anxiety - knocked out of the park. Fire safety - always was nonsense. Now it's "I can't put the charger in the garage because it's full of junk?" Please.

Just come out and say it: You want to keep burning your ever-decreasing, subsidised dinosaur juice obtained via worldwide conflict so that you can continue to make noise and pollute with engines far larger than ever necessary for the tasks you actually perform.

It's literally just that. That's all it is. There's no logic behind it. It's entirely a "feeling" thing.

If you can afford an EV, you can afford a box on the outside wall to provide power.

By a long way, not all of them.

My last house insurance renewal didn't even ask any question whatsoever about any vehicles or where they're parked.

Given that I ran a comparison for 180+ providers on GoCompare and CompareTheMarket and was never once asked before being quoted numbers, at best it would be a "this is not covered" item, but actually there's no mention of anything like that in the policy I did go for.

Tell me why a dev has access to AD enough to lock out other people, including admins.

This is just dumb-ass network management.

The tax code only applies if you're doing certain things in certain ways.

If you've managed to go through a year without paying the minimum percent of tax, through whatever schemes, loopholes, avoidances or otherwise, than a mandatory percent of your income to which you have to top-up means your tax code doesn't HAVE to be watertight, and can't be subverted by those with other interests.

It's a question of whether a thousand independent lawyers working for government tax department can draft new taxes for schemes without other interests or limitations preventing them making a loophole-free tax code, at great expense, and taking years of follow-up legislation to fix and clearly... no country has managed that.

The way to tax is not to just set a tax bracket. That much is necessary, sure.

But the way to actually stop them avoiding that tax, like they always do to huge extents, is to implement a simple system.

Pick a tax rate.
Now if you cannot prove that - in total - you have PAID that much tax direct to your relevant authority, by whatever means, under whatever tax... then you're charged the difference.

So if you are supposed to pay 50% of your income but actually because of various schemes, stocks, investments, donations, etc. you only end up paying 1%? Okay, we want that missing 49% OR we want you to show us the receipts where you paid that much.

So no amount of expensive accountants and clever investment schemes will see you avoid the tax you're supposed to pay.

Apply this not just to individuals but to companies... and watch them squirm.

Touts already do stuff on pre-pay credit cards.

They can just give them to their punters.

This solves nothing.

What do you have in mind? Immigration? The Horizon scandal?

Thames Water alone has taken billions from the public for providing almost nothing for the last 30 years, and just got to double its prices to consumers while on the verge of almost-certain bankruptcy with the sanction of the regulator, and there's utter complacency from the government or regulators for their actions.

Literally every airline, international ferry, cruise ship operator, intercontinental railway, bank, etc. in the world solved this problem decades ago before any of this technology existed.

It's really not hard.

Thousands of people would be paid to queue up, get the maximum 4 tickets, and sell 3 to a tout.

It's an awful idea.

Oh, no, what amazingly difficult things to implement!!!!!!

Gosh, you mean we have to.... do what we do for literally any other goods/service transaction ever?

A corrupt state-enforced monopoly with zero oversight, absolutely no shame even when called out on it, and a bunch of companies (each given their own guaranteed monopoly over an area of the country with no opportunity for ANY customer to EVER change suppler) who took all the money destined for investment in their water network, gave it to shareholders, ramped up billions in (unpayable debt), gave that to their shareholders, begged the government for money, gave that to shareholders, asked for bailouts to avoid going bankrupt, gave that to shareholders, and then had the cheek to literally lobby - in the full press direct to government - that they had to repeatedly pay their CEOs huge bonuses and shareholders even more payouts or they'd go bankrupt.

And the government / regulator literally just kept saying yes every single time. In fact, they just allowed all the water companies to DOUBLE their prices very recently (after all the above scandals) in order to... pay the water companies to invest in their infrastructure. Guess where that money's going? There have already been a dozen news articles this year where places like Thames Water basically tell Ofwat (the regulator) "Thanks, we're going to award that as a bonus to our CEO... oh, look, sorry, we can't invest as we have no money again!".

Meanwhile, LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE RIVER in the UK is polluted by the same water companies way above legal limits, every beach too, no investment has been made in reservoirs etc. since they were privatised (not one of the things "invested in" ever came online to date), almost no money was spent on maintaining, upgrading or improving the water networks, and a dozen companies all over the country all colluded to basically do the same so the regulator "rewards" the one who wasn't quite so corrupt.

The water industry in the UK is so atrociously corrupt that it's aboslutely laughable that the government haven't just ripped it down and restarted it, even just for the look of the thing. They've said they'll "look at" the regulator's role, but it's up to the water companies to behave, and that it's up to the water companies to even TEST and REPORT their own sewage spills into the rivers and lakes and beaches of the UK, like they've been doing for 30+ years.

It's probably the biggest political scandal currently taking place in the UK and everyone in government is just ignoring it.

Tired of hearing about ticket problems.

Sell them only from the official website.
Tie them to an official ID.
Make them non-transferable.

If you turn up at the gate with a ticket that's not got your photo/name/other details on it, and you can't prove that you're the person on the ticket, then you don't get in.

If you're a kid, then you need to be previously named, photographed and be accompanied by a verified ticket holder with a valid ticket for you. People aren't gonna send their kids alone to a concert, with a tout letting them in with a stranger.

Advertise it WAY ahead of time on all the websites, tickets and in the media, so you have both time to weed out any fraud, and fair warning to consumers that all touted tickets are basically worthless or fraudulent.

"Didn't buy it on - Taylorswift.com or whatever - ? Then you won't get in". Massive signs all over the website, posters, venue, etc.

It's 2025, places like Ticketmaster are no longer able to dictate their terms to force a monopoly, and we have the technology to make this just work, and people like Taylor Swift certainly have enough clout and interest to make it happen overnight.

Ticket-touting should have died decades ago, but the industry just can't be arsed to fix the problem.

Bald eagles rarely collide at thousands of mph, and hence don't need anywhere near as much distance.

If you said commercial aircraft, you might have a point, though. But there the minimum distance is something like 2 nautical miles if they're at the same altitude.

Do the maths on that, scaling up the speed from ~600mph to ~17000mph, and get back to me.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to find safe launch windows, and that's been a problem for decades now.

Up until now, hydrogen people were talking about 10,000 psi tanks of hydrogen - because that's the point where the energy density starts to match petroleum fuels.

The question is really, why would we ever care about commerical hydrogen at all, when we have electric batteries pretty sewn up for now.

I can power my house and my car off a battery not much bigger than the filing cabinet sitting next to me now. What makes anyone think we need to worry about anything but shrinking that down a little more?