Yes, but

It’s not a game, it’s an archive of games

Soup and bread is genuinely great if you have them available and don’t want to put effort into cooking. It’s the right kind of simple and hearty thing that helps when you feel run down

I also want to know more about this, it sounds potentially very funny

Oh unfortunately I’ve got a serious chronic illness, it is somewhat beyond the realm of vitamins. Not that vitamins are a bad idea of course! And yes, absolutely give your aunt a call. You’ve been going through a lot, a good family connection is probably healthy

Getting together with the family to remember mum on Mother’s Day, but otherwise not a tonne planned for the weekend. I’m still slowly but surely building myself back up. Work is picking up a bit again. Got a walk up at Loch Lee in my sights on Wednesday if I can manage it, I should have the time so I just need the energy!

If you make an exception for that, why not for any other important cause? And then you just have a news community with weird rules about the format of posts

I get that it’s an ad with a good message, but this is absolutely still just straight up posting an ad

Exactly this, yes

These are probably him giving bribes to others, right? He gets to essentially anonymously give someone money without having to actually spend any of his own money

“Expert Review” here being a thing their program does, not the concept of having experts review something. I didn’t know this and was quite confused by the headline. A brief explanation of what it is from one of AV Club’s linked articles:

“Last summer, Grammarly launched eight specialized AI agents to “provide targeted assistance for specific writing challenges.” The idea has since evolved to hoover up famous authors’ work. Earlier this week, Wired reported that using Grammarly’s “Expert Review” allows an approximation of Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson to nitpick your work. While Tyson has the opportunity to say whether he’d like to be turned into a chatbot, other authors, like Carl Sagan, cannot because they are dead.”

It has, but the article is specifically associating this bill with the more recent reveals about Peter Mandelson. Both general public awareness of Mandelson’s association with Epstein and his appointment as ambassador to the US that brought that connection to the current government’s attention happened well after the introduction of the bill. The article draws no other connection to Epstein whatsoever, only Mandelson

Ireland escaped

The article does mention Epstein, but this Bill was first introduced to parliament way back in 2024

I am objectively correct to propose this update

Even if we include death, you can absolutely check the numbers and see that life peers are not replaced upon either retirement or death in any kind of timely manner. To use the years 2000 - 2006 as an example because that doesn’t require me to combine more tables than necessary from wikipedia, the stretch from the summer appointments in 2001 through to the summer of 2004 saw very few new appointments, and then throughout the second half of 2005 there was a substantial batch of appointments after the main summer one that was bigger than the retirements/deaths that had happened since the summer batch

I’m quite happy to be proven wrong here but it’d be nice if you can point to a source, because I can’t find one and everything I can find doesn’t support it

That surely can’t be right, there was no way for a life peer to retire until quite recently (and after Blair’s tenure)

Ahh, there’s the danger of working off of memory without checking. That said, upon checking, it must be more than annually? If we take Blair as an example since he had a long tenure, it seems like he did a big chunk in June most (but not all) years but there are almost always at least a couple of other batches or individual appointments

Edit: I remembered the appointment process a bit wrong, see ohulancutash’s reply

For the most part it is appointed. Each prime minister traditionally gives some people peerages at the end of their term, which entitles but does not require those people to sit in the House of Lords. On paper it’s the king that does it, but in practice it’s the PM. There are a few others like the last hereditary lords that this is about (they used to make up most of the House) and the lords spiritual (a couple dozen bishops from the church of England, who I would rather like to see get the same treatment as the hereditary peers)

My hand is covered in little scars and I have no regrets