GboroRam

In fact, he's spent $44 billion to be just as bad as Facebook. A platform I regularly contemplate removing.

I think he's arguing that it's no worse than the competition, but those people who are ex supporters of twitter but are not happy with the current offering are arguing it's worse in comparison to what it used to be. Which apparently there doesn't seem to be an any argument.

When can I start singing "forest going down with a fiver in the bank"?

Please no copying or linking to copyrighted material (other than from the original source)

I think they know they're setting a precedent. It's by design. Leniency here paves the way for a very mild punishment for Man City. I'm expecting an appeal, and a reduction, so that Man City get even less of a punishment.

It's a terrible tragedy. Such a great talent, wasted. Could have been one of England's greats.

How did the "best performing asset on the planet" do in 2022? Unfortunately until it's a bit more reliable, it's too risky for most people. And when it's less risky, those incredible gains will dry up, and it becomes a steady investment. And if it returned a steady 5% would you still be so committed? Or, it turns into the next dotcom bubble and everyone who's filled their boots will be lining up to throw themselves off the nearest tall building.

A flange seems more than appropriate.

It would have been really helpful if you'd reported that post instead of relying on someone reading your post. I will not tidy the thread up again, I'll just lock it.

Anyone fancy posting something vaguely on topic? Reminder, the topic is "Twitter Rebrand to X".

I will balance that - twitter spent an unsustainable amount of money to do that. Twitter was losing money. As long as they have stopped losing money then it's an understandable commercial decision.

Exactly. Because the next person being made an example of could be me or you.

I just heard Musk described as some people's "emotional support billionaire" and it seems strangely accurate.

@Davidditch the ring, buy a blink and a usb stick. Pays for itself in a few months.

I liked finding out that WW2 was Poland's fault. There Germany was, minding their own business, when Poland made them invade and kill 6 million people.

Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. He was a presenter on an entertainment show. Remember always, Fox News told so many lies they had to self classify as entertainment instead of news.

I've just been reading that China has devised a nuclear powered battery with almost zero radiation risk. Output is minimal and the life of the battery is 50 years. Interesting how this develops. First step will be a phone battery but who knows how it will go? We're still in the infancy of power development. Charging will be quicker, safer and battery capacity will be better. Right now it's workable but inconvenient. I'm sure filling stations were equally inconvenient in the dawn years of the petrol car.

I see this thread approaching closing down. Can I recommend people ignore or block people instead of reacting?

It's because you're a white English male, innit.

Is this the finish to his career in football? I reckon he will only be able to find work in the USA after this. Oh dear. How sad.

There's a lot of truth in this. It may be that everything is going fine and there's no issues, but maybe you will hit problems. Maybe the local authority will respond to your needs, maybe you'll feel unsupported. If you feel like the children aren't getting the support they deserve, look into requesting an advocate for them. Someone independent who will only focus on their best interests. If the advocate is on your side, the local authority will be hard pressed to ignore them.

I presume you're IFA not local authority. Local authority pay is half or less than agency pay. Unfortunately David, if you are with LA it doesn't go up.

Of course it's a challenge, accepting children with trauma in their life. But I'm always optimistic about what we can offer, stability and love to children who need it. And one of the biggest factors that impacts a carer's ability to provide that is the pay. With our local authority paying £190 per week for a child under 12, it doesn't go far. IPicking up from David's comment about balancing fostering and work, it's possible to be a full time carer, but it relies on the income. f you have space for three, and you can balance the children in your care (and that's a definite challenge), I feel 3 gives you a reasonable chance of providing a fulfilling lifestyle for them. It's annoying when you look at the pay and think, I could stack shelves and not be any worse off, and I'd finish work at 5pm and have a life outside of caring for children sometimes. It might sound a bit materialistic but unfortunately it's a true concern, particularly with local authority rates of pay. It's a 24/7 occupation, whether you have one or three or more. We've fostered 15 or so children in nearly 5 years, I'd have to count them out to be sure. 2 went to family outside of the UK, 2 returned to mum, 2 went for adoption. Plenty of breakdowns for a variety of reasons, often because social services failed us and/or the children. 3 of them are with us still. I'm very much with you on the numbers - the lower the number, the more time that carer has invested in the children they've looked after. The higher the number, likely that's a respite carer who is a godsend for the long term carers who still need a break from the intensity of caring for children after trauma.