« first day (2634 days earlier)      last day (482 days later) » 

7:37 AM
Trash \/
 
8:13 AM
Is that the new rapper on the circuit? Is he as good as Stormzy?
 
8:27 AM
@Snow Can't believe you've not heard... Way better!
 
You forget how old I am.
 
Is your profile picture from that game
I can't remember what it's called or what I'm even thinking of
Or if it's even remotely related to what your PP is
 
Spy vs Spy
 
8:44 AM
Yeh that's the one, I only played it when I was like 5 and didn't really understand
But I still played it is what counts
 
@Twyxz it wasn't that long ago then
how goes the M3 purchase plans?
 
Still unsure, I'm too indecisive. I'm hoping this is the only mid-high range car i'll ever buy before going onto the supers
High hopes
So I want it to be my daily in the future
So it has to be the right choice hahah and I can't decide
 
I can understand that... there's a whole world of choice when you start talking about spending that much
and cars in that bracket do tend to come with associated high running costs - not just in terms of fuel but other consumables and service parts
not a step to undertake lightly :)
in your place (and knowing your preferences) I'd be hard pressed not to spend £35k on a decent '10 plate GT-R and keep a £5k chunk aside for borkage and then just save the rest
 
I'm close to achieving my dream car in terms of money but I'm not going to get it ofc until I get properly afford it and not miss the money
GTR is going to be quite a competitor to the R8 tho, looking for something slightly below that scale
 
Air cooled 911.
 
8:55 AM
2014-16 M4? 425bhp and better looking (IMO) than the M3?
all for the low-low price of about 27k
 
You can't get badder-asser than a LR Defender.
 
@Snow I refute that statement with a Bowler Wildcat
 
@motosubatsu This would be true if the bowler didn't look like an Evoque.
 
@Snow pfft.. the Evoque is like someone took a Wildcat and My Little Ponied it
 
Or an Evoque that learned to say "By the power of Greyskull!!"
 
9:10 AM
@Snow lol
 
10:05 AM
I like the sound of a 911 tbh
I hear they're probably the best drive
So for a future daily it could be a nice pick
M4 is too raw for my liking, the power is just it's main show piece I feel
 
Mine was a daily drive for a few months.
 
10:34 AM
@Twyxz really? it's just an M3 with two less doors
 
11:03 AM
But the only reason I wanted the M3 was for the sound and the bodykit, hence why I'm reluctant to buy it @motosubatsu
@Snow How was it, except for not being dog friendly
 
 
1 hour later…
12:06 PM
@Twyxz It's an excellent driving machine for sure. There's just something very special and direct about it.
 
I really must get around to ticking a 911 off the list at some point
 
12:25 PM
But then in competition was a Cayman GT4
for the R8
So would having a 911 turbo ruin that experience a bit/
 
if the R8 is the goal why not just.. buy an R8?
you could get a R8 V10 for less than you were thinking of paying for the M3
 
Could go for a Gallardo. But then the worst part about Gallardo ownership is pronouncing the name in public.
 
@Snow true.. but it has to be said it's hard to justify the extra cost of the Gallardo over the R8
 
Old one, private plates. No one will know the difference.
 
what would put me off the Gallardo is that you've paying basically another £30k for an older car that has the same chassis and engine as the first gen R8
the lambo is infinitely cooler mind
(so long as you don't have to pronounce the name in public)
 
12:38 PM
It looks so ugly IMo
For what it is (it's still nice ofc)
 
The Huracan is beautiful.
 
Absolutely agreed
It's currently unrealistic, but if I do achieve the dream car and get the mrs a G-wagon then I'd be most certainly open to a 458 or a Aventador
 
James May had a 458. Don't follow him.
 
I'll just save up a "few" years and get a La Ferrari
 
As much as I understand that Ferraris are wonderful cars etc I just don't find myself really hankering after one
 
12:40 PM
Indicators on the steering wheel, and flappy paddles mounted on the steering column. Madness.
 
Lambos have always been more appealing that Ferrari's to me. I don't know why
 
I'd totally go for a FF. Or a 250 GTO, not fussy really.
 
I like the sound of having an Agera but again with the pronunciation of everything
 
Huayra then?
 
^^
The brand of the car is hard enough
then they make names like that
 
12:44 PM
People who afford these cars have people to pronounce the names for them.
 
True, it's like Lamborghini once replied to "Why don't you advertise on television?". Our target market aren't people who sit around and watch television I guess
Their target market isn't to target people who can't afford translators to follow them in a massive bullet proof van as they drive
Along with their full entourage
 
Ferrari had Magnum and Miami Vice.
 
The sheer number of "one-off" versions of the Zonda tells you all you need to know about the target market. If you can't afford to have a supercar manufacturer bespoke build you one you aren't their target market
 
Lamborghini had posters of Countachs and young lady tennis players scratcing their bums.
 
Rich perverts
Like the stereotypical ones on films
 
1:20 PM
TGIF!!!\
 
No, it's Thursday. You're a day ahead of yourself.
 
@Snow Thats not even funny :p
 
Made you look...
 
@Snow ugh.. don't even joke about it, today already seems to have been going on for an eternity
 
This week has flown by for me. Got my first software project again, it was only small but finished it now. Was much more enjoyable than Drupal
 
1:53 PM
Drupal. Is that a laxative?
 
2:06 PM
@Snow well it's sh#t if that counts?
 
2:25 PM
Well, you can tell it's Friday afternoon on the stack, can't you?
We may as well call it "Fiction Friday"...
 
2:40 PM
@Snow I dunno.. sounds like you just made that up
 
My office has now enforced strict badge in/out logging on the entry/exits of the building. So now the people who tailgate someone else out won't be allowed back in the building. Lots of people are getting caught out and have to report to security to get their sessions unlocked.
 
@Snow oof.. that's going to be a fun few weeks while people adjust
 
Yeah. We regularly get officewide emails about bad parking (sometimes with photos) that are usually pretty fun to read. Shame we don't get the badge-bandit emails as well.
 
@Snow yeah we get parking-shaming e-mails here as well
 
Excellent. Unless you're the one at fault.
 
2:58 PM
@Snow so far, so good on that front!
it helps that I typically park at the far end away from others and their swinging car doors :)
 
I'm usually first into the car park, so I get the best space.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:08 PM
Hi is a @moderator here?
 
@Christopher Not at the moment is there something I can help with?
 
Maybe, this question workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/139128 is protected, so in sufficient rep to post an answer, so had to post as comments to the question, just wondering if protection could be removed for litlle while?
sorry thats insufficient
 
@Christopher OK i unprotected it
 
Really? Thank you!
 
@Christopher Please delete your comments after you post the answer
 
4:19 PM
Its now posted, will delete comments and probable format answer, again thank you very much.
 
@Christopher FWIW I think you're wrong regarding the requirement to log all people on site for fire purposes in the UK - it's a good idea certainly but it's not a legal requirement
(speaking as an owner of a UK business here so I have some experience in that area)
 
@motosubatsu, Hi, I think you are correct; but...big but, you do have to know who is onsite
 
that doesn't invalidate your answer though - if the company were to establish a site register for purposes of fire evacuation procedures (and appropriately fill out the Fire Safety Risk Assessment detailing this procedure) then employees would be legally required to comply under the Fire Safety Order
 
Which is what I'm saying in my answer
 
@Christopher oh I'm with you 100% - I was merely pointing out that the direct legislation to enforce that isn't there
 
4:29 PM
and how do you know who is onsite offsite? Popped for doctors? Holiday?
I completely understand your point and agree with you, but how do you know who is onsite and who is off site?
 
@Christopher oh exactly.. again I'm not disagreeing with your arguments, merely that it could be an obstacle to claim direct legal backing where it doesn't exist
swipe-in/swipe-out systems are so quick, easy to use and cheap these days that there's really no reason not to have one
 
But if you are legally responsible for the safety of all employees, visitors etc you would need to account for them surely?
 
I think you're answer provides as cracking way to approach the OP's problem - while giving all the other associated benefits of knowing who is on site or not it's only the legal nitpick
@Christopher nope.. there's no requirement to that. You are legally obligated to carry out the risk assessment, ensure that they have appropriate egress routes and equipment and training
but you are not legally required to account for them all individually
 
I'm fairly sure you would be prosecuted for either of the following:- 1. 125 employees, but only 124 accounted for, fire brigade risking there own lives enters burning building to look for missing employee, 30 mins later 'missing' employee returns from doctors appointment 2. Even worse, you state all 125 employees are present, meanwhile your hearing impaired employee is in the loo, doesn't hear the alarm and dies
Whether it implicitly states it or not, you would be responsible - legally
 
You could potentially face some legal action in the second scenario, but it's unlikely
the second one you would likely face action because the hearing impaired employee should have been identified as being at particular risk during the aforementioned risk assessment
 
4:42 PM
Either way, (even ignoring the ethical concerns)as an employer would you take that risk?
 
@Christopher speaking as an employer I wouldn't take that risk because of the ethical concerns. I'm not really a "do the bare legal minimum" type of employer :)
 
firesafe.org.uk/… states:- Places of assembly and roll call
I know you are not, but I'm struggling that nowhere in UK regs states that personnel have to be accounted for...I'm searching.. one link above, will continue
 
@Christopher it does... but that is guidance not a legal requirement
 
Sorry, but I am incredulous... all company appointed H&S off man. I've ever worked with have always stated that all personnel need to be accounted for... you may well be correct
H&S managers
ok...https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-responsibilities?step-by-step-nav=dc77c606-cc6b-49ac-9f40-b96959d02539 clearly states:- Who's responsible
You’re responsible for fire safety in business or other non-domestic premises if you’re:

an employer
the owner
the landlord
an occupier
anyone else with control of the premises, for example a facilities manager, building manager, managing agent or risk assessor
You’re known as the ‘responsible person’. If there’s more than one responsible person, you have to work together to meet your responsibilities.
 
yep The Fire Safety Order (or more formally The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) is what covers it
that's where the risk assessment requirement comes from - complete with having to take particular care of those deemed especially at risk in a fire (such as your hypothetical hearing impaired person)
 
4:55 PM
There is a legal term for this, but cannot remember it! Its where the law is so broad you can 'if somebody puts there mind to it' be prosecuted for pretty much anything.
 
@Christopher it's the legal concept of "reasonably practicable"
 
@mo
@motosubatsu so in theory it's a legal requirement then?
 
@Christopher no - because it is explicitly not
 
@motosubatsu Then how is it 'explicitly' not?
 
because there is no explicit requirement to do so
 
5:04 PM
But you do have an explicit requirement of responsibility to your employees
 
yes - but what that responsibility entails is set out in the legislation
you have a responsibility to them not for them
 
'put in place, and maintain, appropriate fire safety measures'
and one of those would need to be account for all personnel in the event of an evacuation
 
@Christopher legally speaking that is not considered to be a required "appropriate fire safety measure"
whether it should be is an entirely different question, but the fact remains that as of current legislation it isn't
 
But legally if injury/death occurred as a result of you not being able to account for all employees you would be prosecuted...yes?
 
5:41 PM
@Christopher It still requires more that just negligence usually to procecute
 
@motosubatsu ok. But as an employer you would want to reduce any risk. Anyway, thank you for this discussion, I have learnt something and will compose an edit to my answer
 
6:17 PM
@motosubatsu Answer now edited to make it more 'universal'
 
7:10 PM
0
Q: Do we have guidelines for commercial research-oriented questions?

dwizumA user recently posted a question that asks, "How do you do X?" In the user's profile, there is a link to a software company that makes a paid-subscription product for doing X. The user isn't explicitly shilling (or even mentioning) their product in the question, but it seems that they're only a...

 

« first day (2634 days earlier)      last day (482 days later) »