Things you hate IV

Was going to do a post on this anyway, and then just 10 minutes ago saw an example of it:



People who use the self-service checkout, but don’t load it straight into a bag the other side, instead they scan it all, then spend 20 minutes packing it away. Absolutely idiotic. I saw a guy do it the other day, he had a backpack on his back, scanned everything through, then took his backpack off once he’d finished and started loading it up. Mind boggling.

 

99% of the time its quicker to do it that way, rather than argue with the machine about the weight of your bags which it thinks have changed since the start.

 

I’ve always found if you bring a bag for life and say you’ve brought you’re own bag, that literally never happens.

 

Totally agree. Never had that work for me, always screws up.

 

I've found it literally always happens

 

I left my shopping on a counter once and went to a different shop after a co-op local only had self service available, and it broke halfway through my shop.

 

Battery powered devices that take 3 batteries. You can't buy 3 and you can't charge 3 in one go.

 

When solo sportsmen and women talk about how ‘we’ are doing x or y. Just say ‘I’ if that’s what you mean.

 

A nod to their coach perhaps?

 

Who isn’t competing.

 

They sort of are. Obviously elite solo athletes can only achieve what they do because they're awesomely talented individuals, but the extra 1% or whatever that's needed to edge past all the other awesomely talented individuals usually comes from training, conditioning, mental preparation, nutrition etc. Sure, a darts players probably doesn't rely on a big entourage but I reckon most top tennis players, track and field athletes and the like need it.

 

Well of course, but it still sounds odd to say ‘we’ as in we are doing the French Open.

I suspect it’s a deflection from the rampant egotism in solo sports. Like it’s some egalitarian enterprise between the star and the staff he or she may sack on a whim.

 

Pedestrians who step out in front of you in a gap that isn’t anywhere big enough, but just casually stroll across the road on the assumption you won’t run them over.

 

I tried that in the early 90s when I was late for school and the bus was there. My assessment of the breaking distance of a Ford Fiesta XR2 was wrong and I ended up with a broken leg.

Funnily enough this is the standard procedure for using a crossing in Italy. Wait for a reasonable gap, go and then the car will slow down and let you cross. Works OK if everyone does it.

The Greeks on the other hand, stop for no one at any time. You could die of starvation at a busy junction in Greece waiting to cross.

 

I don’t mind it at all when they get even a tiny little wriggle on to acknowledge they’ve stepped out in front of you, it’s the arrogance of, ‘well now I’m in the road I’m invincible and you’ll bow before me”.

 

In fairness, the highway code gives pedestrians primacy over all other forms of transport these days. Obviously doesn't give invincibility mind you.

 

Yes, particularly when they actively choose to ignore you and look the other way, just assuming that you'll stop and wait.

 

Maps drawn that do not show north at the top. Case in point this nice map of Hickling Broad reserve which I’ve been trying to find on street map or googlemaps. Turns out I couldn’t find it ........because it’s bloody well upside down !! I mean, just why ???

 

I would guess because it makes more sense to someone using the map to have the visitor centre (the entrance) at the bottom than at the top because the brain is accustomed to 'reading' from left to right and most of the interesting points of the reserve seem to be to the right of track down the middle.

 

I don't think it makes it any easier to have the visitor centre at the top or the bottom. I think its utterly bizarre, it's the opposite to any map someone would be following to get there. Do you really think it would be complicated to follow if they simply they had the map the other way round with north at the top and south at the bottom?

 

That's my theory, yes. I can't really see any other explanation for it.

Also, the map is for use when people are already at the reserve, isn't it? They're not 'following it to get there'. Your use of the map is different from the purpose for which it was designed.

 

A miniscule and minor flicker of annoyance compared to the baggy shapeless shīt grey shorts sported by the fella in the green shirt. Dios mio. He must have seen those in the shop, picked 'em up, held them up at his waist and thought "ah yeah, these represent my personality and the sort of person I am. Dull grey, shapeless and lacking in structural integrity. They'll be just the thing to wear out when I go supermarket shopping"

 

I used to make maps as part of my job and I was taught that the two things that were essential on a map were a scale bar and a north arrow, followed by a key/legend if necessary. There can be certain conditions, usually depending on the use of the map, where north is not ‘up’ on the page but these are generally pretty rare. In this case I tend to side with TUT in that I can’t really see a good reason why this map doesn’t follow convention, particularly as it has been rotated exactly 180 degrees which doesn’t seem to be for a genuine purpose. I do take your point that the map is for use of people already at the reserve, but once they have left the visitor centre they could be facing in any direction and I would personally prefer left to be west on the page for navigating my way around.

 

A map is easier to use when you know left is west, right is east. There is genuinely no advantage in presenting it the opposite way round. If you aren't sure where you are on site, and use your phone compass to work out which direction you are facing, you literally need to reverse that to find the direction you need to walk suggested by the map !

 

I’m not necessarily defending it as correct, I’m just trying to analyse the possible thinking behind it. I doubt it was an accident given that the map shows which way north is.

If it bothers you this much, why not ask them why they did it?

 

A different take on weddings given the earlier chat about yes or no to free bars. How about weddings where it costs a fortune to actually attend?

Got a niece's wedding coming up. She and the bloke she's marrying are quite well off and have chosen a 'wedding/hotel' package, where they get married at the hotel (nice views of the sea apparently, although the wedding's in January - what could possibly go wrong?) they have the reception there, the evening 'disco' thing there and everyone stays there. They're reserved the whole hotel for family & friends apparently. There's four of us invited from our branch of the family. Cost: £180 per pretty average double room per night. No twin rooms, no single supplement for my elderly mum (her nan) and as it's so far away, we'd have to stay two nights. Nowhere nearby is either open or much cheaper. And it's a black tie do (why?). So, getting on for a grand and a half once you've factored in petrol costs, drinks etc. On top of that, the niece hasn't actually been in touch for years (no phone calls, birthday cards, Christmas cards etc even though mum sends her cards & money regularly).

So we've decided no, we're not going. And they're upset. Oh well. What a pity. Never mind.

 

I think you can expect to be fairly out of pocket for a wedding, but there's a limit. The lack of contact is a bigger thing than the cost in some ways - zero effort but expecting a lot in return.

What do her parents think of your decision?

 

Selling the rooms to guests will be part of the overall package, they’ll need to sell them to keep the overall cost down for themselves, or to be able to book it at the agreed price in the first place, as the assumption will be they can sell all the rooms.

A similar thing happened with a couple of friends who had a fairly extravagant wedding, it involved all the rooms in the venue being sold to guests. A couple of different guests dropped out and then they resorted to inviting friends who originally hadn’t been invited, but on the basis they booked some £400 a night room. It was all very tawdry and awkward on behalf of the poor people they initially didn’t want to invite, but then tried to shill a room to in order to keep their own costs down.

 

I shouldn't think my wedding cost £180 in total.

Got married in Habana at the state registry office. Ciff hired her dress from the 'Palace of Brides' for not very much, we paid a comrade to video the whole thing with a massive shoulder-held RCA TV camera-looking thing, hired a 50s Chevrolet 'Almendrón' to drive us there and back, with a couple of ladas and moskvitchs behind with the guests. Had some photos done at the 'Palace of Photographs' and that was about it.

Massive fiesta in the house in tbe evening with a huge caldoza stew, a cake, plenty of beer, rum and salsa. There were no wedding gifts given or expected apart from an old painted water jug and 2 matching cups from the m-i-l that had been passed down the generation.

Many weddings in the UK seem to be about showing off and ostentatious consumption. From what is written here, it seems the guests don't even have much of a good time at many of these events.

 

The number of pheasants released into the countryside is a national disgrace.
Solely to be shot.
They are wiping out endemic reptiles, amphibians and outcompeting endemic species like grey partridge. Just yesterday I cycled past a field which must have had 50 just milling around, killing time until someone decides to shoot them, or they are run over!

 

I don’t have the figures to hand, but hugely more of these birds than are ‘needed’ are released every year. Of course they are poor at flying so most end up run over or as brightly coloured food packages for foxes etc. Terrible practice.

 

And as people get poorer with the cost of living crisis we're only going to see more peasants. Can't we just put them to some use in the poor house rather than shooting them though?

 

Bravo. They've completely lost touch with reality. Instead of a family and friends celebration they've turned it into an event that you need expensive tickets for. I don't understand how some people can be so d*mn dumb.

 

Probably have bouncers on the door to check the invites and enforce the strict code. "You may be the bride's uncle, but you can't come in with those socks".

 

Wholly agree. The most expensive cost of my wedding were the flights to Peru. Other than those, the cost of the church, rings, venue (the venue owner was my wife's godfather), food and 10 crates of beer and a a case of wine, car, photographer cost less than £2k. 19 years later still married.

A few years later I was best man at a wedding where they'd spent around £25k, it lasted 2 years.*


* It had nothing to do with what I said in the speech !