[Annoy] What's something small that really annoys you?

Forums › Off topic › [Annoy] What's something small that really annoys you?

1 | ... | 1407 | 1408 | 1409 | 1410 | 1411 | 1412 | 1413 | 1414 | 1415 | 1416 | 1417 | ... | 1828

2805 posts

Uber Geek

#3102621 11-Jul-2023 12:16

Eva888: My Apple iPhone which was running perfectly fine until after the latest update now drains totally overnight. Have turned off anything that makes it smart and removed suspect apps and it still does it.

Seriously considering going to Android.

Google appears to have many with the same problem. I suspect it’s an Apple update to force you to buy a pricey new phone.

What model and what release iOS is it on now and what's the battery health?

My 11 doesn't seem to have changed much over the time and releases I've had it.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102623 11-Jul-2023 12:23

elpenguino:
There's no place for windows sounds to be enabled in an office environment. I cant believe our administrators think this is a good idea. Every time someone makes a 'mistake' everyone in earshot hears a bing bong sound.

Exactly. Everyone knows this is the only allowed mistake sound:

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102785 11-Jul-2023 16:02

Handle9:

Ooh they are getting creative. It's a contractual payment not a "penalty, a fine, nor a claim for liquidated damages."

May the odds always be in their favour if that goes to court.

Wouldn't it be forced through DT for an amount that small? I thought DT handled everything under 30K?

It definitely feels like that change in wording makes it harder to get out of paying though.

The liquidated damages thing was a brilliant counter to the original wording, but wouldn't apply here I don't think?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102787 11-Jul-2023 16:03

Parking at the hospital for which costs rival commercial rates at Auckland Central parking buildings. Eye-watering if you need to spend a few hours there.

Parking at a hospital should be not for profit.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102789 11-Jul-2023 16:06

networkn:
Handle9:

Ooh they are getting creative. It's a contractual payment not a "penalty, a fine, nor a claim for liquidated damages."

May the odds always be in their favour if that goes to court.

Wouldn't it be forced through DT for an amount that small? I thought DT handled everything under 30K?

It definitely feels like that change in wording makes it harder to get out of paying though.

The liquidated damages thing was a brilliant counter to the original wording, but wouldn't apply here I don't think?

Nah it’s legalese obfuscation to try and baffle people with BS. Wilson won’t let it go to the disputes tribunal or court. They’ll fold every time because they don’t want a precedent that call their “contractual charges” BS.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102791 11-Jul-2023 16:11

networkn:
Parking at the hospital for which costs rival commercial rates at Auckland Central parking buildings. Eye-watering if you need to spend a few hours there.

Parking at a hospital should be not for profit.

And it's not just the patients, it's the staff as well. Friend of mine used to work at $unnamed_hospital and they were charged criminal amounts for parking there. You'd think that given the way they exploit their staff they could at least give them free parking.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3102819 11-Jul-2023 17:02

Handle9:

Nah it’s legalese obfuscation to try and baffle people with BS. Wilson won’t let it go to the disputes tribunal or court. They’ll fold every time because they don’t want a precedent that call their “contractual charges” BS.

Interesting. Well, I have decided no matter what, if I ever get a charge again from Wilsons, win or lose, they will need to work hard to get money from me, so they an take it to the DT :)

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3103069 12-Jul-2023 10:30

neb: It's easier to get rid of syphilis than US citizenship.

I thought that acquiring a new citizenship would by default lose your previous one? Swearing allegiance to foreign powers and all that. I know there are exceptions -- in my case because I was naturalised as a child, I could keep my Dutch citizenship, but my parents couldn't. And Commonwealth countries allow dual citizenship with other Commonwealth countries. (I allowed my Dutch citizenship to lapse, because I consider myself a NZer and have little connection to Holland, and I firmly believe that if you've made your permanent home in a country you should commit to that's country, including becoming a citizen of that country).

So I expect that becoming a citizen of Iran or North Korea would wipe someone's US citizenship? Mind you, I'd rather get syphilis.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3103080 12-Jul-2023 11:11

outdoorsnz:

Not quite the same thing, but near where I live, a local dog goes out at night and deposits out the front of peoples houses. So these people got fed up, and place deposits back out the front of said doggy place. Now there is crap everywhere outside this property. Seems to be a stand off.

There's a very effective solution. Scrape the offending material into a paper bag. Douse the bag in kerosene. Place said bag on front door step of the offending owners property, ensuring they are at home beforehand. Light the paper bag and knock on their door then promptly leave the property. The occupant will open the door to see the burning bag and will most likely stomp on it to put it out and end up with doggy does all over their footwear.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3103121 12-Jul-2023 11:57

frankv:
neb: It's easier to get rid of syphilis than US citizenship.

I thought that acquiring a new citizenship would by default lose your previous one?

"Welcome to your new dual citizenship, taxpayer! Your IR1040 will be in the mail as usual".

(I don't know if that's the actual thing, but from talking to people who have tried to lose US citizenship, for political rather than tax reasons, it's not nearly that easy).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3103123 12-Jul-2023 12:03

Just in case anyone is wondering about a missing notification, I posted something here then realised that it might be incorrect so deleted it. No point in adding to the misinformation.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handsomedan

7293 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3103154 12-Jul-2023 13:25

This annoyed me today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300925731/high-profile-radio-host-caught-drinkdriving-keeps-name-secret

"A high profile radio host has admitted drink-driving and being almost four times over the legal breath alcohol limit.

The woman was convicted and granted permanent name suppression when she appeared in front of Judge Simon Maude at the North Shore District Court on Tuesday.

The woman returned a reading of 976 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath while driving in Auckland on December 30, 2022.

That is almost four times the legal limit of 250mcg of alcohol per litre of breath."

Basically, the granting of name suppression prevents extreme hardship for the celebrity. Not sure whether that would also apply to everyone else who has a job and gets caught drink-driving.

FOUR TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#3103223 12-Jul-2023 14:22

Steam who , with the latest update, managed to uninstall every one of my games. What a pain. i am just glad i am on unlimited and Fibre.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3103245 12-Jul-2023 15:21

Handsomedan:

Basically, the granting of name suppression prevents extreme hardship for the celebrity. Not sure whether that would also apply to everyone else who has a job and gets caught drink-driving.

FOUR TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!

I firmly believe that there is no reason for us to name anyone accused or convicted of the crime. Why is it in the public interest? I don't mean celebrities get special treatment, I just mean, no-one gets named ever. It's how it is in more progressive countries. Usually, the people who wear the consequences of being named, are the friends and family of the named person rather than the named person themselves. They shouldn't be punished for the actions of another.

I am disgusted that someone would drive 4 times over the limit, but she was caught and punished. Whether her punishment was harsh enough, I don't know, but that's a different issue.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3103259 12-Jul-2023 15:54

Handsomedan:

This annoyed me today:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300925731/high-profile-radio-host-caught-drinkdriving-keeps-name-secret

"A high profile radio host has admitted drink-driving and being almost four times over the legal breath alcohol limit.

The woman was convicted and granted permanent name suppression when she appeared in front of Judge Simon Maude at the North Shore District Court on Tuesday.

The woman returned a reading of 976 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath while driving in Auckland on December 30, 2022.

That is almost four times the legal limit of 250mcg of alcohol per litre of breath."

Basically, the granting of name suppression prevents extreme hardship for the celebrity. Not sure whether that would also apply to everyone else who has a job and gets caught drink-driving.

FOUR TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!

The thing about name suppression here is that it doesn't work and just invites contempt for the law. I used to try to figure out who these losers (mostly paedophiles) were as a hobby. I didn't publisise the names; I just got satisfaction from discovering them.

Whenever the name of any kind of public figure is hidden, everyone who has anything to do with the person knows who it is in a day, and anyone else who wants to can find out with a little searching.

There are tools to help with this kind of thing, but I don't really need them. For example, I decided to identify this individual just for the hell of it. People with name suppression for the wrong reasons shouldn't be allowed to think they got away with it.

A simple Google search on the headline took me to Reddit and a couple other discussion sites where there was plenty of speculation. No-one actually said the name, of course, but the speculation indicated lines of pursuit. I eliminated a few names then settled on one that had some interesting background. Mainly, there were dates that seemed to match up the arrest, court appearances and facts having to do with the person's employment. At first these seemed fairly flimsy, but when I dug a little deeper, they all lined up. This took me a little over an hour altogether.

When I used to do this, I would continue until I had cross-reference verification of the details and could say to myself with 100% certainty who it was. This time I couldn't be bothered, but I can say I'm at least 80% sure.

Why not more? One thing I have discovered from doing this is that it is not unusual for more than one person to fit the data initially. This is why cross-referencing is important. I'm pretty confident I have it right, but how devastating for someone if I don't.

And this is why name suppression is even more stupidly unjust than it already seems. By hiding the perp, innocent people can easily be besmirched, especially with child abuse issues. In this case there will be people looking askance at their friends and work colleagues who are known to overindulge on occasion, and wondering if that person they respect really would do something so irresponsible. Name suppression is corrosive and should not be allowed except in very specific situations involving the protection of children.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 1407 | 1408 | 1409 | 1410 | 1411 | 1412 | 1413 | 1414 | 1415 | 1416 | 1417 | ... | 1828