nnfox

I've taken the plunge and ordered the Nothing Phone (2) from Amazon. Reduced from 699.00 to 569.00. It's replacing my OnePlus 6T which has been an epic phone, but at 5 years old the battery isn't what it once was and the charging port is a little temperamental now.

Just finished watching Snowfall on iPlayer. Wow. How it passed me by over the last few years is beyond me. Easily the best thing I've seen on TV since The Wire. Utterly brilliant. Lead actor is a Brit too.

Praying for 40 points!

It's really quite common. Most people believe that they spend too much time on their phones and lots of people spend too much time on them without even knowing. Google "Mobile Phone Usage Deloitte" - every year they produce a survey about mobile phone usage and over the years there's been some real interesting stats. The amount of people who check their phone within the 5 minutes before falling asleep and are back on it within 5 minutes of waking up is staggering. I have now downloaded an app called Minimalist Productivity Launch - it's free and essentially turns your phone into a fairly boring, more functional space. Apps are just listed alphabetically (you can have favourites on your home screen). It's all black and white - no colourful icons to entice you in. Once inside the apps themselves it looks the same. One nice little feature is that the amount of time you spend on each app is shown on the home screen. I recommend giving it a try - it still takes will power to stay away, but it can help - my TikTok use has fallen off a cliff.

We've been playing fireworks sounds for short periods of time for the past couple of weeks, gradually increasing the volume, the dog was freaking out to start with, but got better over time. Come the real thing, so far the dog has been fairly OK touch wood. That said, we don't live somewhere where there are lots of fireworks going off all around all night.

It was a great save. It didn't go in. It wasn't a draw. We move on.

We're in a rich vein of form right now. It's unrealistic to assume it will continue for much longer. When it does finally break I suspect that come the end of the season we'll look back and see that this was the best form of the season. Realistically, I would hope that we don't lose more than 6 all season, especially if we have ambition to win it. This is the Championship though, so defeats could literally come from anywhere.

I understood it that there was 16 pieces of chocolate, Tracey tipped up and grabbed 4, so Rachel is left with 12. A quarter of 12 is three, so if Tracey was indeed successful in her quest to obtain the remaining quarter, as demanded, then she (Tracey) would be skipping down the road with 7 pieces of chocolate in her grubby little hand whilst Rachel is left standing with 9 pieces, wondering how the hell she's just lost almost half her stash.

I mean from the macro. The justice system in the UK is pretty robust. Perfect? No. But it is pretty good. The fact that it's being looked at again is testament to that - it wouldn't happen in every country. As I said, the evidence is circumstantial, I get that. Prosecution case was based on a combination of circumstances and witness testimony around his behaviour before and after the crime. It's not exactly a slam dunk. Defence case was "I don't remember", which doesn't really counter the prosecution case. Out of interest, is your issue with the case that the CPS shouldn't have pursued the prosecution in the first place, or that the jury should have found him not guilty?

There's no doubt that the investigation would be different if it were to happen today with the advancement in forensic and digital investigations. For me, it's an interesting case. I'm not convinced that Bellfield is anything other than a narcissistic liar. The circumstantial evidence against Stone is intriguing, but it is just circumstantial. The guy does sound like an utter scumbag, but that alone doesn't make him a murderer. The evidence gathered by the police was presented to the CPS who were satisfied that it should be presented at court and then a jury found him guilty. Twice. We have to place faith in the justice system. He protests his innocence but his defence of "I don't remember what I was doing" is a bit crap. He's been found guilty and he needs to prove his innocence to gain his freedom. Given the circumstantial evidence in the case, it's probably appropriate that the boot lace is forensically examined. That might prove his innocence, but it might not.

Some sort of scheme like they have with those bloody scooters could be a solution. Electric cars, unlock with your phone, pay as you go. It would be great if they were driverless cars It won't replace private ownership but could reduce the number of cars on the road. If it's cost effective, people who just need a car to go to the shops or pop round to see friends and family could go for it. Use the train to get between cities and pay as you go cars when you're there. The scheme probably exists somewhere, I think it sounds reasonable on paper, but not sure what it would be like in the real world

Pleaded guilty to public order offences. Has been bailed before sentencing. Lost his job, too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-66985501

There's no infringement. The only player possibly infringing was the attacking player, who kicked the ball out - so regardless of whether there's infringement or not, it's a goal kick. Different if it's a defending player doing the infringing, but I can't see that it's the case in this instance.

I have to assume that this is one of those times where government leak stuff to the press ahead of any announcement to guage the reaction before they make the announcement. It's a classic "Let's see if we can be popular, rather than right." Although hard to see how that this will be popular amongst most humans living on planet earth.

I think that this is quite concerning for humanity. Antarctic sea ice at a record low. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66724246

John Terry will want approximately none of our players.

Pretty solid window in the circumstances. Certainly one of our better ones of recent years. Makes me wonder how much influence the manager has in it all. Rudkin's the constant over the last few years, but this window seems positive (with Maresca) compared with pretty much all of the windows with BR. I'm on the fence with Rudkin.

You don't think Wolves will insert a relegation clause into a multi year 100k per week contract that would see him earn considerably less if they were relegated?

We'll be a weaker team without him. Of course pounds and pence are important, but not the most important. Our 'product' is the football team that we put out on a Saturday afternoon. For long term success, that team needs to play in the Premier League. We can't do that if we sell our best assets, just because it seems like a good deal. Heck, why not just sell the whole squad for £200m and replace them all with trialists and academy products on 50k per year? There's a balance to be struck here, we can shift some, but not all. Iheanacho is one that we need to keep.

But I know how much milk I like! It doesn't really vary.

But pouring cold milk into boiling water is OK? I've done it for years. It's the best. I've never tried the water/milk/loose tea in a pan, but that really doesn't sound right, and I feel sorry that that happened to you!

Lots of weird people say this to me.

Love tea. Not really fussed by the brand, just so long as the milk goes in before the water.

I know what you mean, but we have to have trust in the legal system. Like anything and everything it isn't perfect and is prone to errors on occasion, but this trial went on for ten months - that's exceptional. There's a lot of detail to go through and the jury would be in possession of all of the facts, not just the ones reported in the media. Don't forget as well that they didn't reach a verdict on 6 attempted murders and she was actually found not guilty of 2 attempted murders. That reassures me somewhat that the jury really gave considered thought to the situation, rather than jumping on the bandwagon and giving guilty verdicts across the board.

But was their job to investigate pretty extreme allegations? What training had they received to investigate such claims? Where was the policy on how these matters should be dealt with? How far did the individuals involved diverge from their training and policies? What else do they do in their job, or is investigating serious allegations all that they are paid to do? If it emerges that they went rogue with their decision making, then absolutely, they need to suck up whatever they have coming. I just have a problem with the failings of the system being pinned on one or two individuals and those people being vilified in the press to the extent that they are declared almost complicit in the crimes.