Totally agree. I’m on restricted duties at the moment so meet all of my clients on teams. I hate it. The audio is terrible so one or both of us is always mishearing, my desk is in front of a window so I have to keep my curtains closed for them to see me. I don’t get to build the same rapport with them and their responses to my questions are more stilted because of it. A large part of my job is judging body language and reading non-verbal cues, which is next to impossible on teams.

And on monday, my computer decided to do a mandatory, 3 hour update, so I missed an appointment and couldn’t access the client’s number to apologise or explain. So I had to text a colleague to run over to the client’s office let them know I wasn’t going to make it

Yeah but it’s still a third of the price

Yes, well done. The US is behind Iraq and Zimbabwe so of course nothing needs to be done in the US until those countries sort their shit out

Either or both parent could be responsible depending on the circumstances. Was dad working away and doesn’t own any guns? Not his responsibility. Does mum have 3 guns but all of them were locked away according to strict safety regulations and the child accessed a gun from somewhere else? Also not responsible. Did uncle give the child a gun and tell him to go nuts? Very responsible. Circumstances, and levels of culpability, can vary. If both parents own guns, didn’t secure them properly and failed to monitor or restrict the child’s concerning behaviours then yes, they’re both equally culpable.

I don’t really identify as liberal and not sure what that’s got to do with anything. But regardless, if somebody’s willful negligence leads to multiple deaths then yes, they should be held accountable.

We don’t need to focus on the details here. If they were strangers, the jury would say something to the effect of, ‘Jennifer failed to prevent undue access to her gun’ or ‘negligently permitted a stranger to have access to her gun’. Ultimately, if it’s her gun, she needs to be in control of it, regardless of the circumstances

Eh, if the child was an adult and they were strangers to each other, I’d still say that the gun owner was culpable for not securing their gun properly. If you own a weapon, it’s your responsibility to know where it is and what it’s doing at any time

More than one person can be responsible for a crime. A burgler might have been the one to break and enter but the accomplice could still have been culpable of staking the house and driving the getaway car.

I know a Simon Banks who works in a bank. Go figure

Brilliant, thank you

Thank you, good detective work

Looking for a new, non-shot phone. Can anyone ID the one on the left?

No but we do know the basic function of screws: holding shit together. The absence of screws implies that shit is not held together fully. Is it still sufficient to fly? Maybe. But the presence of screw holes implies that somebody in the development process thought them necessary and now they’re not there.

Sure, it’s likely safe in the same was that the restaurant rat is likely not carrying a plague. But it’s not guaranteed and I’m not willing to be the one to test it

Sure, this is why the passenger raised the issue to make sure someone responsible was aware of it and could make that safety judgement. And clearly they were right to do so if the pilot (or whoever) grounded the plane.

That’s actually heartbreaking

So make a show without police cooperation.

Why would I mean apologism? They need their worldview reprogramming because their current worldview is misogynistic and false. Reprogramming would include comprehensive challenging of negative attitudes and modelling of correct, non-misogynistic beliefs. It should be done by people with psychological training because they have the skills and knowhow needed to reprogramme someone’s thinking but it doesn’t particularly need mental health professionals or collusive, misplaced sympathy.

No but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need addressing

Non-violent resolutions before resorting to ‘send in the drones’, at the very least

Yes, because more violence is always the answer

Plus the ‘legitimate interests’ of 3rd parties