I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of alcohol.
Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.
The worst part is that keeping them all illegal drives people towards whatever is available, and some of those choices are far worse than others.
A more flexible approach would see drugs regulated purely based on actual harm coupled with availability of a less harmful analogue (will fentanyl users pick heroin if it's more easily available than fentanyl? If so regulate one much more strictly than the other)
Incidentally that approach might well see tighter regulations on alcohol than several currently illegal drugs.
It's not really a preference if it's only what you can afford. People who only buy second-hand cars will naturally end up with whatever was new 5 years ago, which will gradually include more automatic ICE cars, hybrids and EVs.
not 100% disputing what you're saying and im sure more automatics/EVs etc will gradually filter in. BUT it's not just an affordability thing lots of people just prefer cheaper cars and would prefer to put their disposable income elsewhere.
Preferring to put your disposable income elsewhere sounds exactly like an affordability thing.
If I have £15,000 in the bank, spending £8,000 on the manual vs. £9,500 on the automatic (Renault Clio, 5 years, both on motors.co.uk) is significant. I'd choose the cheaper car.
If I have £50,000 in the bank it's much easier to justify.
(And if I have only £8,000 or less I don't have a choice, but I might tell my friends I "prefer" not to put a lot of money in the car.)
I haven’t checked. They are barely sold anymore. In 2020 ca 95% of cars sold were automatic (or electric). You can still get manual used and probably cheaper than used automatic because no one wants manual anymore (except some petrol heads and old people that don’t want to learn to drive automatic).
There's still a big demand for manuals here, not just from petrolheads either. They're popular generally but in particular with newly qualified drivers, and people who live in urban areas and drive only infrequently. They're just cheaper and more economical.
That being said it is shifting (haha) slowly- I think in the last couple of years the majority of new cars sold have been automatic. But most people buy used anyway so manual is going to be around for a long time yet.
I'm UK based and still drive a manual. The main reason being cost. I'm a super infrequent driver (maybe once a week for bulky shops or long weekend trips) and don't want to be paying through the nose for something that is a convenience not an essential. I drive a second hand 2013 Toyota aygo which was super cheap, is zero rated for road tax, incredibly reliable and ultra fuel efficient.
I'd be willing to bet I'm quite representative of other city based drivers who have the option of public transport, walking or cycling. That's why I don't see the demand for manual dropping any time soon.
No, experience with people on the planet. People care what others things of them and how they consider them, and are, more often than not, insecure about it.
That may be true, but most of them don't go to the extent of writing a book whose sole intention seems to be showing how cool they are ("Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman").
Well yeah, because most of them don't have anything nearly as worthy of accomplishments to be able to show off "how cool they are", as opposed to Feynman.
Sorry I just don't agree with this. I run 50 miles a week and mix in some cycling too, and I actively have to make an effort to eat enough to maintain weight. Endurance cardio doesn't trigger hunger or cravings for me unless it's a long (90 mins plus) effort.
It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany).
Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?
This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?
My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.
Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.
Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.