What grinds my gears...

[Parafox]

On 15/02/2023 at 22:56, Free Falling Foxes said:

British Gas have sent me a second email asking for a meter reading.

I ignored the first thinking it was spam, because we have a smart meter.

It turns out my meter has stopped sending the info so the emails were genuine.

In submitting my readings, a huge spike in my apparent usage became obvious. In the last 12 days I've used nearly £500 worth of leccy according to my so called 'smart' meter!!!!!!!!!

They are looking into it.....

 

On 16/02/2023 at 06:36, Royston. said:

Bulb (octopus) did something similar to me.

The usage was £6580 for the month but at least they didnt have the gaul to bill me that amount.

 

 

 

On 16/02/2023 at 08:44, HighPeakFox said:

Likewise my gas meter has gone loopy too....

 

On 16/02/2023 at 09:08, Bellend Sebastian said:

My Smart gas meter has decided to stop working again having gone to sleep before Christmas and waking up again in January.

 

I don't have a clue how they work or what can go wrong. It's a shame as of late I do like to see what's going on rather than having the excitement of submitting a meter reading and only then being confronted by the terrifying numbers. Much better to see the horror unfold in front of your eyes and be depressed over an extended period

 

On 16/02/2023 at 09:22, Free Falling Foxes said:

And then you read this morning their profits have trebled to 3.3 billion......

We're with EDF (robbing French bastards). Back in December our "smart" meter suddenly stopped giving usage info via the "smart" app. I contacted EDF, (well some bloke called Eddy on a remote chat), to enquire why.

Apparently EDF are "upgrading" their smart meters to provide better customer service as to the energy they're using. 

I asked how the upgrade happens and they said it's an update that happens remotely and could take several weeks.

FFS I can download a 24 mgb update for COD on my PS4 in 2 ****ing hours.

I also asked for an in home display monitor. Can't have one until the "smart" (rip-off) meter has been upgraded.

There's something not right here.

What are they trying to hide?

Edited 18 February 2023 by Parafox

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

 

 

 

 

We're with EDF (robbing French bastards). Back in December our "smart" meter suddenly stopped giving usage info via the "smart" app. I contacted EDF, (well some bloke called Eddy on a remote chat), to enquire why.

Apparently EDF are "upgrading" their smart meters to provide better customer service as to the energy they're using. 

I asked how the upgrade happens and they said it's an update that happens remotely and could take several weeks.

FFS I can download a 24 mgb update for COD on my PS4 in 2 ****ing hours.

I also asked for an in home display monitor. Can't have one until the "smart" (rip-off) meter has been upgraded.

There's something not right here.

What are they trying to hide?

I genuinely don't believe they're trying to hide anything, but the technology is outpacing their ability to roll it out to consumers.

 

Smart meter usage has a government set target which is beyond the capabilities of the utility companies, especially since Covid put a halt to both the installations and the production of the equipment.

 

Many in home displays will only talk to the original meter it was installed with, and when people change suppliers the meters and IHD's can't communicate with the new suppliers systems to register either/or the meter readings and the usage.

 

The best thing anyone with a smart meter can do is continue to provide periodic meter readings, it may be a pain when people feel they shouldn't have to, but at least the bills should be correct and not estimated.

[Captain...]

18 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Think this is why I got nobbled by it. I adored these when I was younger and am taking even greater joy from them as I now read them to my son. They keep quoting The Twits as the main offender which begins with an entire passage on beauty being more than skin deep.  As you said, utterly tin-eared.

 

 

At this point I swear people are taking the rip to see what they can get away and pocket a few quid.  I also think in many cases it's gone beyond parody and does damage to more significant issues as people will see things like this and roll their eyes.

 

Puffin, sod off on this one please.

As soon as I read the article I thought uh oh we'll be hearing from those sensitive snowflakes again.

 

And here you all are.

 

It's some classic kids books modernised to keep them relevant/promote kinder language/sell more books. If it hadn't made the news I doubt anyone would have noticed. It probably happens a lot more than you realise. Have they even changed that passage you quoted?

 

They have made a few "small and carefully considered" changes to promote kinder and nicer language, like not calling August Gloop fat, they just call him enormous instead hardly a massive rewrite. I guess I didn't realise how many people enjoyed calling kids fat.

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

As soon as I read the article I thought uh oh we'll be hearing from those sensitive snowflakes again.

 

And here you all are.

 

It's some classic kids books modernised to keep them relevant/promote kinder language/sell more books. If it hadn't made the news I doubt anyone would have noticed. It probably happens a lot more than you realise. Have they even changed that passage you quoted?

 

They have made a few "small and carefully considered" changes to promote kinder and nicer language, like not calling August Gloop fat, they just call him enormous instead hardly a massive rewrite. I guess I didn't realise how many people enjoyed calling kids fat.

The glutinous nature of AG is essential to the story. Having a large frame or being taller than average has no relation to the manner of his downfall in the book.

 

Stupid and unnecessary changes IMO.

[Zear0]

53 minutes ago, Captain... said:

As soon as I read the article I thought uh oh we'll be hearing from those sensitive snowflakes again.

 

And here you all are.

 

It's some classic kids books modernised to keep them relevant/promote kinder language/sell more books. If it hadn't made the news I doubt anyone would have noticed. It probably happens a lot more than you realise. Have they even changed that passage you quoted?

 

They have made a few "small and carefully considered" changes to promote kinder and nicer language, like not calling August Gloop fat, they just call him enormous instead hardly a massive rewrite. I guess I didn't realise how many people enjoyed calling kids fat.

Respectfully, surely the snowflakes (ironically used as a derogatory phrase, how dare you...) are people such as yourself who don't like the word "fat" rather than those who dislike unnecessary censoring things that really don't need censoring? 

 

You're probably correct that nobody would have noticed, but for me that doesn't excuse amending authors/artists works without permission in cases like this where they really arnt offensive. It's not some previously casually accepted slurs, it's calling the gluttonous kid "fat" (he is). 

 

Lastly, might want to revisit the point I was making with the passage as I was using it as an example of the context of the story and how the clumsy amendments amusingly contradicted the point of the book. 

Edited 19 February 2023 by Zear0

[Mike Oxlong]

25 minutes ago, Captain... said:

As soon as I read the article I thought uh oh we'll be hearing from those sensitive snowflakes again.

 

And here you all are.

 

It's some classic kids books modernised to keep them relevant/promote kinder language/sell more books. If it hadn't made the news I doubt anyone would have noticed. It probably happens a lot more than you realise. Have they even changed that passage you quoted?

 

They have made a few "small and carefully considered" changes to promote kinder and nicer language, like not calling August Gloop fat, they just call him enormous instead hardly a massive rewrite. I guess I didn't realise how many people enjoyed calling kids fat.

I’m really looking forward to the re-edit of Die Hard where no one actually dies. It’ll be just so much kinder. 

[leicsmac]

15 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I feel like if you're a woke parent and some of the language concerns you or you think your kid might get the wrong message and they're young then that could be an opportunity to gently discuss it with them. 

 

I can't help but feel like some of this shit is a right wing psyop. 

 

If it (along with other examples) is, then I have to tip my hat to the players involved and instigating because they are doing a damn good job of ensuring the waters are muddied enough and a lot of people are distracted enough that they can continue to target the people they consider "lesser".

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’m really looking forward to the re-edit of Die Hard where no one actually dies. It’ll be just so much kinder. 

See you at the gluten free, non-dairy and sober party pal. 

[Captain...]

47 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Respectfully, surely the snowflakes (ironically used as a derogatory phrase, how dare you...) are people such as yourself who don't like the word "fat" rather than those who dislike unnecessary censoring things that really don't need censoring? 

 

You're probably correct that nobody would have noticed, but for me that doesn't excuse amending authors/artists works without permission in cases like this where they really arnt offensive. It's not some previously casually accepted slurs, it's calling the gluttonous kid "fat" (he is). 

 

Lastly, might want to revisit the point I was making with the passage as I was using it as an example of the context of the story and how the clumsy amendments amusingly contradicted the point of the book. 

It's just cancel culture at its worst, I can't believe you are trying to get Puffin and the Road Dahl foundation cancelled.

 

With regards permission, it was all done with the Road Dahl foundation, so they have all the permission they need.

 

Which change has contradicted that passage you quoted? I missed the bit where they changed the description of the Twits to "beautiful on the inside" and "misunderstood".

 

As for that fat fvck Gloop, they use a synonym, he's enormous, as well as the pictures and other descriptions it's pretty clear he's supposed to be a tubby little shit with no self control, they're not suggesting it's glandular.

 

You're all very silly for getting worked up over nothing.

Edited 19 February 2023 by Captain...

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

They have made a few "small and carefully considered" changes to promote kinder and nicer language, like not calling August Gloop fat, they just call him enormous instead hardly a massive rewrite. I guess I didn't realise how many people enjoyed calling kids fat.

You said massive - I'm totally offended 

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It's just cancel culture at its worst, I can't believe you are trying to get Puffin and the Road Dahl foundation cancelled.

 

With regards permission, it was all done with the Road Dahl foundation, so they have all the permission they need.

 

Which change has contradicted that passage you quoted? I missed the bit where they changed the description of the Twits to "beautiful on the inside" and "misunderstood".

 

You're all very silly for getting worked up over nothing.

Eh? I'm not trying to get Puffin cancelled (they pay me royalties for one) or the Roald Dahl foundation cancelled. 

 

I just don't agree with amending literature without author permission. 

 

*Edit*

 

On second thought, let's have an Eric Carle book burning! 

 

 

Edited 19 February 2023 by Zear0

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Eh? I'm not trying to get Puffin cancelled (they pay me royalties for one) or the Roald Dahl foundation cancelled. 

 

I just don't agree with amending literature without author permission. 

 

*Edit*

 

On second thought, let's have an Eric Carle book burning! 

 

 

What are they supposed to do? Get a Ouija board out?

[Zear0]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What are they supposed to do? Get a Ouija board out?

Leave it alone would be my suggestion.

 

I'll probably park this one, but it's an interesting discussion none the less. As I've said, I'm not in favour of censoring art without the artists permission. Whether it's painting fig leaves on The Last Judgement or calling a Hungry Caterpillar "fat".

 

As you say it's the foundations decision but I think it's really silly. Not that it matters as I've got the x-rated originals which I'll read by candle light. 

[The Bear]

I have to agree with Zear0. If it was an adaptation then fine change all the words you want. But if it's the artists original work then you shouldn't be changing a thing. You can of course use it to educate kids about ideals and language in the past. But if it's that upsetting for their little minds then just read them something else. 

 

What next, editing all the racism out of Mein Kampf in case people studying it get offended?

Edited 19 February 2023 by The Bear

[FoxesDeb]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What are they supposed to do? Get a Ouija board out?

They could just leave it alone

[BKLFox]

It’s all to late we are already on the motorway to disappearing up our own ass’s, we can no longer use the common sense approach to speak up against anything because a lane  backdown the road to object has already been shut to us..greetings and salutations to everyone!

[Daggers]

The BBC removing its products from third party apps is ridiculous. Now I have to use two apps - and BBC SOUNDS is a sack of shite..

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, Daggers said:

The BBC removing its products from third party apps is ridiculous. Now I have to use two apps - and BBC SOUNDS is a sack of shite..

Just in the UK I think, I can still use TuneIn over here fortunately.

[Daggers]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Just in the UK I think, I can still use TuneIn over here fortunately.

Delighted for you. Less so for me struggling with The Archers omnibus. And that’s another thing, deleting past episodes after a month - ridiculous. I was saving them for our flights next month.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

They could just leave it alone

Everyone's acting like this is a new thing:

 

"A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: “We want to ensure that Roald Dahl’s wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today. When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout."

 

The only thing that's new is the frothing outrage at some perceived slight against some bullshit ideology that things can't be changed for "woke" reasons.

 

The absolute monsters, wanting to use kinder language without changing the story or meaning. Just utterly despicable that people want to be kind and are aware of how language has changed and want to adapt.

 

There are certain agendas out there on both sides that are trying to stir up these feelings and stoke the fires on a culture war when in the majority of cases there is literally no story, and without this shit being stoked up none of you would have even noticed these changes. This is not China changing the ends of films and editing out whole scenes. It is a few small language changes probably motivated as much by money as kindness and it is just needlessly being made a big deal of by those that want you to join their ranks of outrage or outrage at the outrage.

 

It's all just silly and there are bigger things to worry about.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

 

 

It's all just silly and there are bigger things to worry about.

So don’t worry about it 

[Daggers]

Button mushrooms.
 

They aren’t real mushrooms, they should be banned. 

[FoxesDeb]

43 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Everyone's acting like this is a new thing:

 

"A spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said: “We want to ensure that Roald Dahl’s wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today. When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout."

 

The only thing that's new is the frothing outrage at some perceived slight against some bullshit ideology that things can't be changed for "woke" reasons.

 

The absolute monsters, wanting to use kinder language without changing the story or meaning. Just utterly despicable that people want to be kind and are aware of how language has changed and want to adapt.

 

There are certain agendas out there on both sides that are trying to stir up these feelings and stoke the fires on a culture war when in the majority of cases there is literally no story, and without this shit being stoked up none of you would have even noticed these changes. This is not China changing the ends of films and editing out whole scenes. It is a few small language changes probably motivated as much by money as kindness and it is just needlessly being made a big deal of by those that want you to join their ranks of outrage or outrage at the outrage.

 

It's all just silly and there are bigger things to worry about.

Who here is frothing with outrage and making a big deal out of it? Whether it's a new thing or not, people have the right to object to it if they don't agree. 

 

I personally am not really comfortable with trying to erase the acknowledgement that some things were acceptable in the past which aren't now, and I would prefer we used it to educate and learn from instead of trying to literally rewrite history. If there are words in the books which people find objectionable, they should be using them as conversation points with their children imo, or instead just read something else. Some people want everything changed from the past to reflect today's society, and if that's their opinion, that is fine too. 

 

There's also a very fine line imo between changing the words to make them kinder, and losing the whole meaning of why Roald Dahl wrote the way he did, but some people will disagree with that too of course.

 

As an aside, I always thought the Oompa Loompas were gender neutral anyway without realising it, I'd never thought of them as either men or women.

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Button mushrooms.
 

They aren’t real mushrooms, they should be banned. 

Are coconut mushrooms still available?

I used to love those when I was younger, one of my favourite sweets.

[Daggers]

8 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Are coconut mushrooms still available?

I used to love those when I was younger, one of my favourite sweets.

Again, not real mushrooms. 
 

Ban.