By that age, I was into my third long-term job (> 5 years) and had had upwards of 16 short term ones - multiple part time ones at once, or some just for a few weeks or a couple of months here and there between the long-term ones etc.

48 doesn’t seem that unlikely - nor even an indicator that they will not be staying put for any length of time unless your job is a shitty one with a high turnover anyway.

Doctor who (2005) s01e07 - Kronkburgers on Satellite 5 in the opening scenes.

Without looking for sources - so I could be totally wrong - I believe that it did darken proportionately and that light meters would register that. However, human eyes are not light meters and adjust to the dimmer light without you knowing.

I don’t know whether it was you, but I have responded to this same question on Lemmy before.

Yes. We had a coal fire when I was growing up - in the 60s and 70s -, so it was an everyday thing during the winters.

This was a criticism that the Nazis used against liberal democracies. They saw this as a fatal weakness and used it as a justification for keeping in power themselves, once they had achieved it.

Various dictators have said much the same as well.

However, looking at the track record of democracies vs dictatorships or single party states, I think that the data will show that pluralist democracies typically last longer.

I don’t think that I have ever submitted more than 2 applications in a week. Most of the info in those is the same, so it’s just copy and paste from the last one or from your cv and then how you fit the person spec, which always the one involving most thought.

It hardly counts as a full time job though.

I don’t think that I have ever actually kept it a secret as such, but I would seldom have cause to mention it anyway until I get an interview. At that point it depends on my current relationship with my manager. Sometimes I have just booked a day off for no specific reason, other times I have told them. If it is a post in the same organisation I’d certainly tell them. If it was a place where yhe managers were that bad, I wouldn’t want to stay there at all.

What exactly does ‘should’ mean here? Should in order to achieve what?

If you want to know what the word means at the expense of interrupting the flow, then yes.

If you want to stay with the flow, then no.

That said, it is so simple in almost all situations these days to look a definition up that I almost always do on the odd occasions that I find a word I don’t know. And the more you do, the less you will need to in future.

You’d need to refuel at some point and I expect that refuelling whilst in motion would probably hit some legal issues.

And then, assuming that you overcame that, in the UK at least, you’d need at MOT test at some point, which would have to be at an approved test centre, so 3 years at the absolute max - although I expect tyres etc would need attention before that.

Use Pritt or a rubber band or something to fix a 3mm A6 plastic or plywood sheet to the back of the notebook?

Or, you can buy A6 clipboards.

If you are a producer of doohickeys and I buy them from you to sell on, then I am a retailer and a customer of yours, but I do not actually consume the doohickeys. It is my customers who are the consumers.

Or, if you produce a certain show and I pirate that show from a torrent site and watch it, then I am a consumer of that show - but not a customer.

Animal species will expand into suitable habitat nearby, certainly. Whether they cease to exist in their original range is usually a question of the habitat there becoming unsuitable for some reason or another - maybe through climate change, or increased predation, or because that species has changed the original habitat itself - which is what you seem to be talking about. That is usually a question of overgrazing or similar, and typically will be a cyclical thing: population boom leads to overgrazing, which leads to migration and/or population crash due to starvation, which then allows the food source to recover and rinse and repeat.

I am struggling to think of a particular animal species which has permanently changed the habitat of an area to the point where they couldn’t survive there - other than human. There are plenty of plants and microorganisms though. That is the whole basis of ecological succession.

I have only heard of him through the podcast. I’d suggest listening to that. It’s a great series. Or, of course, his actual books are listed on the wiki page.

However, I think that he is saying that we shouldn’t be relying on something that can be and clearly IS being removed or ignored when inconvenient. Maybe, instead, we should be looking at respecting human life just for itself, without cluttering things up with legal language that doesn’t actually add anything.

Personally, I can see where he is coming from, and seldom think or speak in terms of rights myself for much the same reasons. But, either way, however much ignored or misused it is, I don’t think that we can realistically expect anyone who is likely to create exceptions to human rights to have any innate respect for people otherwise.

Until someone comes up with something better, human rights are about the best way of framing the ideas that we have.

In addition to the reasons suggested in several of the comments here so far, the philosopher Giorgio Agamben is extremely critical of the concept of human rights since they are a legal and political construct, and the same legal and political systems are used to create ‘exceptional’ circumstances in which the rights are deemed not to apply to certain groups. Relying on these rights is flawed, in his view, since they will be suspended when most needed. The Philosopize This Podcast did an episode on this just recently.

Fortnight is in routine usage in the UK.