u/hennell

I ought to watch that again, such a lovely film

Jimmy Carr is often more offensive in subject than target, his jokes are usually more shocking then actually cruel. He's also got an phenomenally good understanding of jokes / one-liners, so even when you don't like a joke of his you can at least see how it is a joke - there's wordplay, a misdirect, some sort of incongruity etc. You can at least say where the joke is in his gags even if you don't find them funny.

Take the homeless. Not the most offensive topic, but most comics would say jokes about the homeless are punching down so wouldn't do them. Carr however has a gag:

>“I did a gig in the US once for the homeless. I said, ‘It’s nice to see so many bums on seats.'”

It technically uses the offensive language of 'bums' for the homeless, but not in attack, it's literally the whole joke, pivoting on a dual meaning of 'bums'. There's no real viewpoint, no real attack, it's not saying that's what he calls them, it's a play on language.

I suspect in a routine Carr may have followed that up with something like "That's just a joke obviously. I wouldn't do a gig for the homeless". Which is another reversal joke, but also helps set the scene in his shows that what he says is entirely for the point of laughter. His defence when the press attack him for some offensive gag is always 'it's just a joke' - which usually works out ok for him because they genuinely are.

Gervais has a gag on the homeless too:

> "I wish there were no homeless people because they're horrible"

That's still a clear joke, it looks like it's a nice 'socially responsible' view, but then surprise - he's actually being selfish. You laugh because it fits his character. Or maybe you laugh because 'he's saying what we're thinking, but we can't say that'? What ever the feeling, it definitely implies more of a viewpoint then Carr's, and it's much more of an attack even if 'I didn't mean it - it's just a joke' might hold up as there is a joke structure there.

But many more 'cancelled' comics now skip the joke parts entirely, thinking that just observations about offensive subjects are enough. The defence 'it's just a joke' is much harder if your bit is just a rant about how homeless people smell really bad etc.

TLDR - Jimmy Carr does jokes and many are far less offensive then you think when you actually examine them.

Did anyone else spend too long trying to work out what "robot dog spurs" were?

It's going to end with violence.

Finally, the real definition of socialism!

/s

Safe for now, but you still need to keep going. Get it to current and add tools like rector etc to help keep it current for the future

But you can still shoot better exposure than that without adding lighting. Unless you have an ISO-invariant sensor you'd get better results shooting at a more appropriate iso then pushing exposure that much. Editing should really enhance photography skills not replace them.

I love sketch comedy when it's not afraid to take big swings. I have no real idea what this is spoofing, why the egg thing, or really much of it. But I love that it has such a big response with others - it's what sketch comedy should do, bits that connect with different peoples sense of humour and references.

I'm not so sure about the power of social media here as people want online comedy that hits hard and fast, no misses. If you come to this show with that attitude you'll get cross as soon as you hit a sketch you don't connect with. I hope it means more people will check it out, and maybe gives the writers more freedom to embrace different ideas, but populism like this seems to inevitably lead to a backlash which worries me.

We have a good market of broadcast TV, so most people do just use "Freeview" (free to receive digital channels), but there's several subscription broadcast of which sky is the biggest. They mostly rely on sky sports and movie packages, and don't release UK numbers of subscribers (it's ~23m across the EU+UK apparently).

But all UK channels operate under ofcom regulation, so the BBC is as unrestricted in language as Sky - but the size of audience and who is likely to be watching etc dictates what sort of things are justifiable.

We have a general concept of "the watershed" - bad language is mostly restricted to after 9pm when little kids are assumed not to be watching. But a show starting before that, or one that appeals to younger audiences can't suddenly drop a f-bomb the minute the time changes. Bake off runs 8 till 9:30 for example and would have a lot of complaints (that would likely be upheld) at going blue even at 9:30.

Where as shows like "Have I got news for you", a topical comedy show that can be quite scathing and rude will be fine using bad language as it starts at 9pm, although they will put a warning before the show starts if there's really offensive language from the start.

There's a fun pdf of British swears ranking how offensive the British public find them that ofcom put out as guidance. Quite interesting reading

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/offensive-language-quick-reference-guide.pdf?v=326908

The article says satellite images don't show one. Which leads indoor pool still an option...

Headlines do not want to give you information, they want you to read more. If you only read the headlines you will be more missinformed than informed.

This has been the case for a long time.

Schools like permission slips for most things. I'd assume any after-school club would require a permission slip so parents don't wonder where kids are. It's also easier to do permission slips for everything then decide which clubs might need parental permission - does a book group need permission? A prayer group? You know parents will complain if not told, so permission slips mean they have to be.

The only thing you can do without permission slips is change Tim to Tammy apparently. /s

Sigh.

Pay gap data can be complex and affected by individuals or groups in higher or lower-paying positions

Unless you compare or filter similar roles with similar roles "pay gap data" is useless. It's like /r/peopleliveincities - people working entry level jobs or working part time earn less than people working high level positions. If one group of people are the bulk of the first group and rarely in the second they will have a pay gap.

Show the pay across similar roles and the gap (largely) disappears.

Rector is pretty easy for modern upgrades, I haven't tried it with 5.6 code but if you can get it running and pointed at your code it will update a lot of deprecated code out of the box. Usually you just have it detect php version from composer, here you might have to manually select each php set so it doesn't do so much at once.

The bigger issue is tests, as ideally you run them after each rector to confirm it still works. If there's nothing a dumb but surprisingly effective way is to run a script against your local server testing a list of urls with errors displayed. check for error output then give a clickable link so you can go see what the problem is. not as good as code tests but faster to cobble together.

Lr works by adding edits as 'instructions' on top of the RAW. "1234.raw" > "+1 exposure, -0.3 highlights..." etc. The preview shows those changes, but they're not in the file itself so you can change them later etc

When you export it does it from the full raw data so it can export at different settings to what the preview might be on. I think you can export from previews somewhere, but you rarely want to unless it's a low-res samples export.

If you need multiple sizes or formats it should also be quicker to do them as a batch rather than independently. I think I found exporting all images as 'print', 'web' and 'social' sizes then deleting images I didn't need faster then exporting only the subsets I wanted in each - although it might just feel it as you can let it just work while you get a snack!

Cleaning after a 1 night stay is not a 30 minute job. There's a basic level of cleaning you need to do between every guest (bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen) etc you can't go below. For a longer stay you might need more cleaning, but it wouldn't be that much longer than the default level, if it was you get charged an additional cleaning fee for making a real mess.

What program does adobe make that has a faster workflow with photos than lightroom?

Alias has denied ever providing such advice to anyone

Given he did so on camera, this guy does not appear to be a very good lawyer.

Also why on earth is the fine not the responsibility of the owner at the time of the fine? Look at the owner of the company when the fine is issued, it's their problem, you can't amend or transfer it.

Probably should also be rules that a foreign owner who won't pay a fine gets it taken from the business as well really.

Not sure this system is fixed by just going after this lawyer pointing out the problems. (Although we should be doing that)

"You ain't my mother!" "Yes I am!" Is basically 80% of my knowledge of EastEnders. They ran that in trailers for what felt like ages. Presumably after the event as I guess it would have spoiled it otherwise?

My other 20% of knowledge comes from TV burp, so I'm guessing most of my "knowledge" is quite outdated at this point.

But I do have very clear visuals of this scene.

Looks overdone to me, just looks rather artificial/ obviously edited which I don't think suits the image content much. I actually assumed the pose was edited as well tbh, half expected it to be AI.

That said I wasn't expecting the photo to be so underexposed, so good work fixing the lighting there!

There's a tick after 2016 so it was post the first win, but predicted a second followed by Ivanka as president now...

Basically it has predicted nothing if that's your worry. If you're more just worried about the general state of the US... yeah, I'm with you buddy.

I read this thinking you meant you weren't sure if the identical twins had the same father...

This is the full lines from wiki quote (with emphasis mine):

Babish: Then, order the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor. Not just any special prosecutor, the most blood-spitting, Bartlet-hating Republican in the Bar. He's gonna have an unlimited budget and a staff like an army. The new slogan around here is gonna be "Bring it on!" He's gonna have access to every piece of paper you ever touched. If you invoke executive privilege one time, I'm gone. An assistant D.A in Ducksworth wants to take your deposition, you're on the next plane. A freshman Congressman wants your testimony, you'll sit in his kitchen. They wanna drag you to The Hague and charge you with war crimes, what'll we say? Bartlet: Bring it on.

He clearly says the special prosecutor will have access to any paper he touched. That's not limited to MS things, and practically (probably also legally) couldn't be.

To be honest I'm not sure if it's really what any lawyer would say (or do) in real life, but in the TV world it's fantasticly shows a few things very quickly:

1. This is going to be hard. Any mistakes will be found and pounced upon by your political rivals. This is going to be a hard fight, and they're going to take it on.

2. Babbish is going to do this by the book. No shortcuts, no use of presidential powers etc, it paints him as an honourable character rather than a lawyer who'll win at any cost. This also re-enforces point 1 - it's a hard fight, but adds a second - it's one they'll fight with honour.

3. At the time it would also really have brought the recent Clinton impeachment to mind. I think that started as a purely financial inquiry, then uncovered more as it investigated, a situation that didn't work out well for Clinton. (Not that it really should have). But this is alluding to that same dynamic - they will see everything, but here it implies they have nothing to hide. Which actually presents Bartlett as an honourable character despite the scene being about him lying to everyone about his health.

As a TV scene I think it's brilliant, as a realistic legal strategy I'm not so sure. You kinda see how things happen with Leos history, Sam and Laurie, the "one in 3 white House staff are using drugs" etc where things are brought up that are not really relevant to the original point.

For the UK that's absolute nonsense. It might be used more than the US, but most would agree it is seen as a strong swearword, often the most offensive swearword.

Ofcom (Broadcast regulator) do a "offensive language guide" based on public surveys, which is an interesting pdf to read](https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/offensive-language-quick-reference-guide.pdf?v=326908) if you want to see a big list of British swears and attitudes to them.

On this one they put it in the highest category and actually say:

It often generated strong personal reactions, and participants had mixed views about its acceptability, even late at night.

Aka - even after the watershed a lot of people find it unacceptable.,

The BBFC (British film classifier) do similar surveys and they find the same thing.

Their language guide, doesn't feature a big list of British swears, but does show a case study of a film getting an 18 certificate because:

In our language research conducted in 2021, this word emerged as the one people in the UK found the most offensive.

It might be used more here, and have different local or age-related uses, but it's all a far cry from "relatively light swearword almost a filler".

There's probably a legit legal question there, but not sure why he thinks they wouldn't have delivered leaflets etc as asked? Why would you want to draw attention to yourself by not doing so, or risk an investigation falling apart because you decided to sabotage by not delivering leaflets?

I think there might be a better case for opponents claiming that ITVs support might have helped reform by giving them two extra volunteers, rather than them being sabotaged.

But I also assume ITV have well paid lawyers who looked up what their legal obligations were beforehand and avoided putting themselves into a legal fight they have no backing for. I'm curious to what the legal arguments there might be, but it's hard to imagine anything will come of it, unless ITV just didn't think about it at all.

(I did enjoy the fact he seems to considers meeting his dogs the hight of privacy invasion hilarious though. Does he never take them to a park? Poor dogs)

No idea, not sure why it should matter. If you're spouting racist views now though, the party you're in now should kick you out.

Any party you might have been in before should maybe look into your actions there, but It's hard to say that you hold responsibility for things a member/employee does/says after your employment ends.