I think sutekhs decision on when to return was related to the whole thing about the Susan Triad on Earth being much more powerful due to the doctor coming back a lot. And Ruby isn't departing the show.
hangonasecond
joined 2 years ago
Pretty sure ruby is back next season, right? And that the new companion is an addition not a replacement.
Ruby stopped Gwilliam because the doctor was gone. When she saved the doctor by stopping him from stepping on the fairy circle, that timeline was wiped out and ruby had a different life where we now see she meets her parents and doesn't keep travelling with the doctor. But Gwilliam still happens, so the doctor stops him instead.
The operative word is "mandatory". Medical professionals should have a level of discretion available to them, since not all treatments work for all people, even if it wasn't such an ineffective treatment being discussed.
100%. When one of the cons is no meaningful protection against injury, a helmet should be a huge pro. It absolutely saves lives.
That's really unusual. My experience has been the opposite on Linux Mint, most games run the same or better than when I was on windows. I had a little bit of trouble getting world of warcraft to work at first, but I was mostly done playing that anyway. I guess it's all down to what games you play.
Nope, fine with me!
Posted in DD but adding here too - some confirmed departures of some players including Okonkwo, and seems Hein, Walters and Cozier-Duberry might all be exiting too
https://www.arsenal.com/news/22-players-depart-arsenal-end-contacts
Hard agree. I'm loving this season.
Nope, carbon tax is different to carbon offsets. A carbon tax is intended to put an immediate financial burden onto energy producers and/or consumers commensurate to the environmental impact of the power production and/or consumption.
From a corporations perspective, it makes no sense to worry about the potential economic impact of pollution which may not have an impact for decades. By adding a carbon tax, those potential impacts are realised immediately. Generally, the cost of these taxes will be passed to the consumer, affecting usage patterns as a potential direct benefit but making it a politically unattractive solution due to the immediate cost of living impact. This killed the idea in Australia, where we still argue to this day whether it should be reinstated. It also, theoretically, has a kind of anti-subsidy effect. By making it more expensive to "do the wrong thing" you should make it more financially viable to build a business around "doing the right thing".
All in theory. I don't know what studies are out there as to the efficacy of carbon tax as a strategy. In the Australian context, I think we should bring it back. But while I understand why the idea exists and the logic behind why it should work, I don't know how that plays out in practice.
Bruno Fernandes having a dummy spit over a change room would probably be season ending for the club lol