From what I read last time I properly looked into this (so, almost a decade ago when I was considering setting up a business importing LED lamps), the blue light emitting diode junction simply uses less power to emit the same amount of light.

Electrically speaking it’s no bigger or lesser a problem in terms of circuitry to have just blue diodes or blue + red diodes in there since they’re bundled in blocks of diodes in series (and then multiple blocks are in parallel) and the only thing that differs between those two kinds of junctions from a circuit point of view is the drop voltage of one kind of diode being different from that of the other (diode junctions done with different dopants have different drop voltages), something you take into account in the design stage when deciding how many LED diodes you use per block or what DC voltage will your 110v/220V AC input be converted to to feed those LED strings.

More specifically for LED light bulbs, the messy stuff in terms of electronics is the circuitry that converts the 220v/110v AC input into a lower voltage DC suitable for the LEDs whilst limiting the current (as diodes’ only ability to “limit” current is them burning out from overheating due to too much current), not the actual LEDs.

But I’ll put it even simpler: if the problem was indeed simplicity as you believe, then LED bulbs with only red LEDs would also be very common as they’re simpler than blue+red ones.

That’s two seconds more than I’m willing to spend looking up a member of a royal family, any royal family.

Personally I just go for warm white for places which should be cozy and cold white for places with a more utilitarian use.

Cold white LED light bulbs are actually more efficient, so I’ll even get more light out of the same power lamp making it easier to see what I’m doing (which is what you generally need lights for in an utilitarian use location).

As a side note, one of the reasons why cold white LED light bulbs are a thing is because they’re a bit more efficient than warmer light colors.

The reason is because they all just have 2 kinds of light emiting diode (LED) junctions inside - red and blue - plus a phosphorus layer on top that smooths those two perfect lightwave color peaks in the wavelength domain into a broader light spectrum, and the blue is more efficient than the red, so lamps with a higher proportion of blue emitters to red emitters - and which hence emit more light towards the blue end of the spectrum (i.e. a colder white) - will emit more light for the same power consuption than those with more red emitters and hence whose light is more towards the red side of the spectrum (i.e. a warmer white).

If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander!

Also used to use the tram like everybody else, back in the day.

Meanwhile in the UK there are actually laws just for the Royal Family, like the one that temporary closes parts of the airspace for the Royal Family Helicopter to pass through.

Mind you, this is far from the only way in which The Netherlands has a far, FAR, FAR more egalitarian spirit at all levels of society and laws than Britain, and I say this as somebody who has lived in both countries.

As with everything, it real boils down to how pushy one is in their criticism.

If somebody who loved the thing goes looking for the opinion of others and finds critical opinions, well, though luck for them - they went looking for it and nobody else posting in what’s a public forum has any moral obligation from refraining to post a negative opinion, IMHO.

If however one is being relentlessy critical mid-film after the other person has made it clear that they don’t want to hear it, that’s being a selfish asshole in my view.

The criteria of “significant achievement” is basically bollocks: for example Fred Goodwin who led RBS to pretty much bankruptcy (not quite as it was saved by the state) held a knighthood for “Services to Finance” which he got for merelly leading the bank he almost destroyed (though at least it was annuled after he almost destroyed it) and mandarins, politicians and public prosecutors get theirs for nothing more than doing their job without being brazenly incompetent, something which is only a “significant achivement” if one expects extreme incompetence for the vast majority of such people hence doing one’s job without ending up in the press for massive incompetent is a “significant achievement”.

From my point of view (as an immigrant who lived in Britain for a decade, and thus having not started with any respect or lack thereof for the Honors System), after a couple of years I concluded that whilst the folklore surrounding it was all about if being about honor (hence the supposed criteria of “significant achievement” and the very loud giving once in a while of one to a very visible public personality such as an actor for being a famous person who did their job in a competent manner), the reality of it was no such thing and de facto the criteria were highly skewed by the social class a recipient originated from and their level of contribution to “keep the boat steady and stop it from being rocked”.

Certainly when it comes to peerages the Honors System bares no relation to honor or any kind of achievement that goes beyond “having a specific job and not end up in the press for being exceptionally incompetent at it”.

It’s perfectly possible to enjoy chewing gum for the brain even though one gets no nutritional value from it.

Being critical of a film is actually just having a critical opinion about it.

Sharing that opinion with others is something else: a way of deriving personal enjoyment or satisfaction from one’s critical position through sharing it with others.

As with everything else that requires multiple people, somebody deriving their enjoyment of something through others is absolutelly fine if said others are also doing so or at least if don’t really care either way, but not fine if one is negativelly affecting the enjoyment of others to get some enjoyment oneself.

So if you’re critical of something whilst somebody else is not and indulge your need to “share it with them right then and there” in a way that impedes their own enjoyment, then you’re being selfish and if you have even the slightest shred of consideration for others you should at the very least shut up until after they are done with their own enjoyment.

(That said, an after-film discussion between two people with opposite opinions about good it was can be thoroughly enjoyable for both. Ultimatelly it depends on the people involved)

I think that if one would blindly throw a stone in the middle of the Lords it would be far more likely to hit a person who is not good (i.e. with a personal moral better than “personal upside maximization”) than one who is.

More broadly for things like Peerages, outside artists it’s rich people, politicians and public-school attending scions of the upper and upper-middle class (even the Public Servants who get one are public-school educated). Notice how common people who are not in the public eye and committed enormous acts of bravery and self-sacrifice for the good of others (the above-mentioned “firemen and nurses”) never get peerages or above, and instead get at most OBEs.

You’re correct, similarly to Germany it has a President with limited powers which are far less than Parliament or the Govern, not a Presidential System (like the US or France) were the President actually has executive power.

I was following it just fine until the “experience the information superhighway” part.

My mate’s ZX Spectrums had no “information superhighway” connection.

If somebody needs to ordered by a Deity (real or imaginary) to have Moral Values, they have issues.

Trump is making sure the US will be behind the rest of the World in the first big Technological Revolution of the XXI century.

Of course, His Lordship will still keep on getting paid by British taxpayers for being such a great person, not to mention his non-executive board memberships after being a great friend to fatcats whilst in Parliament and in His Majesty’s Government.

In theory it does make sense to have someone who can veto everything on behalf of the state if the government goes weapons grade guano.

In Democratic countries which have a President but not a Presidential System (so, like Germany and Portugal, and unlike the US and France) that’s basically the entirety of the power of the President.

Personally I vastly prefer a figurehead President who has at most limited to power to dissolve parliament (for when, as you say, “the government goes weapons grade guano”) which gets actually chosen on a vote and kicked out if he or she turns out to be worse than they seemed before getting the position.

From the places I lived in, I above all detested the Constitutional Monarchy in Britain, with the Royal being filthy rich and a cornerstone of a web of patronage that was part of, if not most of, the reason why the country has massive class division and discrimination by European standards. My experience in The Netherlands was nowhere as bad, though.

Does that guy reflect the Norwegian version of having “breeding” or is it more a case of too much inbreeding?

After seeing this picture I’m actually curious how much inbreeding is there in the Norwegian Royal Family.

I lived in Britain for a decade and the impression I got was that, outside people with genuine proven merit like artists and scientists, having a titles of nobility there was a pretty good indicator of the holder of the title being a complete total sociopath, the higher the title the worse the character of the holder.

They do quite a lot of whitewashing of the system by giving things like knighhoods and damehoods to well known and loved actors and actresses, plus a renowned scientist here and there, plus some lesser honors (NEVER a knighthood or damehood) to people like firemen or nurses who went above and beyond their duty in helping others, but the vast majoriyty of types with Peerages and above are either well connected career politicians who made sure the “right” people gained from the system, very wealthy nouveau riche or those from old wealth.