here is one, so you know what you are looking at:
Everyone agrees the trains are bad and nobody agrees about why.
Nationalised for forty years and they were not better. Ownership is not the variable.
Depends which line. Some of it is ownership, most of it is that track and trains are run by different people.
Every decision is made on a shorter timescale than the thing it affects. Defer the maintenance, leave before the bill lands.
no likes, no ranking, nothing to win.
create an account or sign in to crib.
Denzel curry is better than lil dicky. They're not even in the same league
Polarisation gets the blame, but the lasting damage from social media might be flattening — every subject arrives at the same size, in the same box, with the same three reactions available, whether it is a war or a sandwich.
F1 drivers are athletes in exactly the same sense footballers are, and the people who scoff have never held their neck steady at 4g for two hours in fifty degree heat.
Everyone in this country agrees the trains are bad and nobody agrees about why, so here is an attempt at the actual causal chain rather than the usual list of villains. Start with the fact that almost every decision is made on a different timescale from the thing it affects. Rolling stock lasts thirty to forty years. Franchises ran seven to ten. Ministers last about eighteen months in post. Nobody who commissions a train is in the job when it arrives, and nobody who signs a timetable is there when the consequences of it show up. That mismatch produces a specific failure. It is always rational to defer maintenance, because the cost of deferring lands after you have gone. It is always rational to promise a route rather than fix an existing one, because the promise is legible now and the fix is invisible. Do this for thirty years and you get exactly what we have: a network that is simultaneously over-promised and under-maintained, staffed by people who mostly know what is wrong and have no mechanism to say so upwards. I do not think this is about nationalisation. Both models have produced it here, and both models have avoided it elsewhere. It is about whether the person making a decision is still around to receive its consequences.
Nobody tells you that recovering from something takes about three times longer than the leaflet says, and that the last third is almost entirely boredom.
Everybody says they want politicians to admit mistakes and everybody punishes the ones who do, and I include myself in that.
unpopular opinion but most "food deserts" are actually time deserts. the shop is there, people are working two jobs.
The honest reason I have not switched energy supplier, bank or insurer is that it is dull, and the entire industry is built on exactly that.
Every organisation says it wants honest feedback and has exactly one person who gives it, and that person is always halfway out the door.
Nobody has ever said "we should document this properly" and then documented it properly.
Nobody actually likes standing desks. We all just got told sitting was killing us and now we're too embarrassed to sit back down.
Self-driving is a much harder problem than anyone selling it admits. The driving was never the bit — it is the one situation in ten thousand that nobody wrote a rule for.
"Just be more confident" ignores that confidence is downstream of having been right in front of people a few times, and nobody can give you that. You can only be handed the room, and whoever is giving the advice is usually the one who decides who gets the room.
Honestly think the four-day week debate is mostly people who already have autonomy arguing about the calendar, while everyone in a warehouse gets nothing out of either version.
Ask anyone whether they want the truth from their doctor and they say yes, then go to pieces the moment a doctor is actually blunt with them.
Ask a city what it wants and it says better public transport. Ask about the bus and the room goes quiet. The bus is the only bit that is affordable, deliverable this decade and actually useful to people without money — and it is the one thing no city gets excited about announcing.
Cricket is the only sport where you can go for lunch, come back, and nothing has happened, and that is a feature.
Saying the uncomfortable thing is usually the kind option, and almost nobody does it, because the discomfort arrives immediately and the kindness turns up months later.
Why is every app now trying to be a social network? I want the thing to do the thing.
Meetings are not the problem. Nobody distinguishing a meeting for deciding from a meeting for informing is the problem. Half the frustration in any organisation is people arriving in different modes and spending an hour discovering it, then booking a follow-up to do the thing they came to do.
Football was better without VAR and I will not be moved on this. You cannot celebrate on a three minute delay.
Nobody has ever explained to me why we accept that a phone lasts three years.
Films are too long. Not artistically, logistically — I have children and a bus to catch.
Running is boring and that is the entire point. Every attempt to make exercise entertaining has produced something people stop doing in March.
Every sport eventually optimises the fun out of itself, because the people playing are trying to win and nobody is trying to make it enjoyable to watch.
something you reckon. a gripe, a hunch, a hill you will die on. serious or not.
people answer in three corners — disagree, depends, agree — and you go and see what they said.
anyone can join with an email address. it is used to send you a code and nothing else.
what all this does to your head, and what to do about it.