• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • Nah they’re all simple. The basic specs I listed are just that, the devices themselves are completely straightforward, almost too much so. Literally just a single button to wake it up and flip between screens that show input/output values and remaining charge. Power stations will also have buttons to turn on/off AC and DC outputs separately.

    The thing you pay more for is charge capacity in Ahr (they like to list mAhr as it has extra 000) and input/output power in W.


  • There are literally tons of choices now, all pretty decent. It’s all grey label Chinese rebrands. Anker used to be the quality king, but Iniu and Ugreen are brands also on Amazon that are of the same quality.

    The decision should be more about what you want from it. Power output of the ports, charge capacity, price.

    If you have a laptop you should look into how much it uses to charge. 45W, 65W or 100W are common levels, and often available from power banks (although gaming laptops may prefer more, they’ll still take what they can get). Even if your laptop charger uses a barrel connector you can actually charge it from at least one of the USB ports - great to know when your relative loses their charger!

    Phones don’t require that much. However you may want to consider the charging levels with multiple devices - a 100W port might downgrade to 65W if a second device is plugged in. It also might not, really depends on the product. Like I say, the choice is about what you want from it.


  • There’s a beefy one now with 160W max with 3 USB-C (2 with captive cables) each capable of 100W, plus a USB-A. 25Ahr charge capacity.

    Also you can get a power station with an AC inverter if you really want it all. They typically have a range of outputs, even a cigarette lighter socket, and often contactless charging on top. You can also get a solar cell to charge them. However with increased capacity comes increased price.









  • When I was at uni a friend who was looking for a flat said something that kind of blew my mind about what I had been looking for with places to live. I pointed out that he could have saved a chunk of money a month on rent by getting a different place. He said “Yeah, but I’ve got to think about my standard of living.”

    It’s not wasteful to use energy if you’re making use of it.



  • Really annoying that you’ve been downvoted for a very reasonable take.

    and the buses are at their busiest so discouraging extra users at that time is beneficial.

    This is the key justification. However, the issue it points to is that the government are putting the desires of a business (primarily First Group) before the needs of the population.

    The goverment should make law for the benefit of the people, and businesses should work within the law in service to the people, especially people that pay them. The bus companies should run more busses at peak times to meet the added demand disabled people bring.

    Bus companies get massive subsidies and the businesses are stuctured in such a way as to squirrel their profits away so they can demand more. That the government, the people supposed to represent us, are capitulating to them further is an insult at best.


  • Sure, but that’s not the issue here.

    The issue is what kind of discrimination is allowed. In common law countries like the UK, as a rule of thumb, things are permitted unless there is a law against it. With discrimination, discrimination is permitted unless you discriminate over a protected characteristic.

    You can discriminate based on qualification, for example. You wouldn’t want to hire someone who wasn’t qualified for the job. So discrimination is in fact widespread and usually appropriate. It’s just that when we talk about discrimination we’re usually talking about the bad kind, ie when people discriminate because of sex, race, disability, etc, in a manner that is not considered “fair” by reasonable people.

    Sex and gender is an even more nuanced example. Usually it’s wrong to discriminate over this, however in some cases it’s appropriate. A women’s domestic violence centre may require that it only be staffed by and only support women - particularly because the women they’re supporting may have a valid fear of men, regardless of whether the specific men they’re fearing pose a threat.

    Anything else, that’s fair game. You could refuse to hire someone who was ginger, provided you can establish that wasn’t because of race or something. You could refuse to hire someone of a certain height, so long as you can establish it’s not a disability. In some cases, like with sex and gender, height may even be necessary to discriminate over for what the job is.

    To take the football example further: it might be appropriate for Arsenal not to hire a Man U supporter as support staff, in a similar manner to qualifications. However this happens so infrequently that it isn’t worth becoming a protected characteristic. Someone refused a job at one place can still find work elsewhere; the discrimination is not widespread and has minimal harm, while preventing the discrimination may harm the effective performance of the business.

    There’s nothing clowny about any of this. You just have a lack of understanding of what this is, and bought into a headline designed to make you disgruntled to grab your attention and get you to engage.

    if someone supporting another sports team would “disrupt the harmony of the office”, then the workers there are children that need to grow the fuck up

    This is true, except that it’s more of a “should” than a “need”. Employers should be fair and give equal opportunity, but they only need to do so within the bounds of the law. The rest is up to them to decide - the law isn’t meant to dictate everything, nor should it.