u/Interesting_Pen_4499

Like everyone else, I wish the pay was still higher, but unfortunately this was inevitable. The fact is, Deliveroo were LOSING money as a company before the Doordash takeover. The only reason they were up for sale was because of their dire financial position - otherwise the previous owner/shareholders would have just held on to it. And of course the new buyers (in this case, Doordash), were going to try measures to swing it into profit, like reducing fares.

The fact that, pre-takeover, Deliveroo paid significantly more than Uber - when you'd assume the customers are paying roughly the same - made it obvious it couldn't last forever.

I know many on here will try and blame this on 'capitalism' or 'greedy shareholders' , but ask yourself this: if you owned a company (or a small % of it, through shares), and it was losing a tonne of money, what would you do? At the end of the day, Deliveroo isn't a charity unfortunately.

In my opinion, Thatcher's proposed poll tax would have been so much better than the current system.

The way I see it, services provided by the council are split into roughly 2 categories:

1. Services which benefit everyone more or less equally, eg filling potholes or bin collections. It doesn't make sense to make the better off pay far more for this just because they happen to have more money - otherwise why not do the same for things like the BBC? Of course everyone recognises that with that, everyone gets the same product, so everyone should pay the same.
2. Services which only benefit the poorest, eg disability/SEND needs and, worst of all in my opinion, council housing. Just think: those who either pay their own mortgage or rent have to pay a tax to subsidise those who get it for free! (However I agree that some genuinely vulnerable people need social housing). Making the richest pay the most for something that only the poorest get access to is a double-whammy of unfairness, in my Thatcherite opinion.

Also, just think how absurd it is for young ppl deciding whether to move out of their parents' home: they will have to pay council tax if they do, despite having far less disposable income! This isn't to say they should be exempt, just that the current set-up makes zero sense.

I'm sure many on here will agree with this, but what are everyone's thoughts on this?

To the extent that Darwinian evolution has not already disproved these creationist religions, would a discovery that the MWI interpretation of QM is in fact correct be the final nail in the coffin?

For example, if all realities happen simultaneously, with us experiencing a 'random' one (but weighted to the more likely ones), how on Earth could God decide who goes to Heaven or Hell? Presumably one person would qualify for either depending on which branch of reality they went down... or would the religions simply argue that truly good people would always be virtuous enough to go to heaven regardless of the reality? But then, how would God know when the person has died (not to mention the fact that technically, there will always be an arbitrarily unlikely wavefunction in which the person is still alive).

This may all be a moot point if MWI theory is proven to be unfalsifiable, which my gut tells me it probably is. But then, people assumed many other scientific theories were unfalsifiable, eg whether or not there was an 'aether' for light (disproven - truly empty space is a vacuum).

EDIT: the Telegraph literally just launched a near-identical website, so ignore this post i guess...

Hi all, at the risk of sounding like spam, what does everyone think of this tactical voting website, https://stoptheleft.vote/ ?

I get that lots of Reform supporters detest the Tory record, but with Reform's polling seeming to have peaked at around 30% (now back down to 25%), it is starting to look like the choice at the next GE will be between Andy Burnham (possibly in the form of a Lib-Lab-Green coalition), or a coalition between Nigel and Kemi. On that basis, tactical voting to boost both party's seats could be really helpful. I know it may sound cliched but i think the Tories have partly learned their lesson, at least on immigration at least.

What does everyone think?

Long story but, I am friends with a boy and girl (both straight, aged 20) who have been friends for 3 years. They are extremely close: what started off as running errands together then progressed to spa trips, and they have recently even booked a holiday, paid for by the guy (bc the girl genuinely cannot afford it, she's not just pretending).

My question is, is it even possible for a straight girl and straight guy to be this close, as friends? All I know is that the girl had a crush on the guy in high school, and she has never explicitly told me it ended. I never found out about the guy's feelings on the matter. I know everyone on the outside will say they 100% like each other, but my confusion is that this has been going on for over 2 years now. Why would neither of them make a move, unless they are too worried about 'ruining' their friendship? (Both of their uni friends are extremely fake, so maybe their one true friendship is too important to risk?).

For context, I used to be in a friendship group with them and one other person, but we've both now left the group. (The other person left first, leaving me as the third person in a trio). However, as a member of the LGBT community myself, I don't want to be guilty of reverse discrimination, by saying their friendship is invalid due to their sexualities.

What makes the situation even weirder is that the girl has even told me that she realises that she cannot get a boyfriend and continue their friendship at this level.

Please let me know what I should think abt this, thanks for reading

Does anyone else have this? For context, I have a specific kink about 2 men fighting/wrestling each other, which is almost all I masturbate to now I think about it. It never involves any private parts and seeing pictures of this on traditional porn sites makes me feel really queasy. Is this a normal aegosexual thing?