Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

Pross

I’m going to get annoyed and outraged on behalf of Rick here. Asda doing an over 60s £1 meal deal to help with the cost of living crisis because it obviously only affects older people.

Whilst I don’t share Rick’s view of oldies all being loaded, living in oversized million pound houses and getting a generous DB pension I equally don’t see them being worse off than a lot of other people yet they get discounted everything, free bus travel, winter fuel allowances etc. Can you imagine the uproar if a store did something like this and restricted it to under 60s? It would, justifiably, be classed as age discrimination.

https://corporate.asda.com/newsroom/2022/10/06/asda-launches-1-cafe-meal-deal-for-over-60s-to-help-with-cost-of-living

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

rjsterry

Point still stands. What's their definition of diversity and how do they know you don't increase that diversity if they haven't collected that information from you.

Far from an expert on this but it's not collecting football stickers. The aim isn't to hire one of each.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

That's nuts.

If they aren't prepared to put their 'diversity filter' criterion on the advert ("Applications from white males will be rejected"), they shouldn't be advertising the position.

Pross

Contact the Daily Mail and start practicing your best compo face for the accompanying photo

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

Write to them really nicely, say ypu completely understand and will be happy to be considered at any time if they are unable to fill the vacancy.

When they call you in month or two after theyve failed to find an autistic gay disabled Indian woman to fill the role, turn them down.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

Now that is properly stupid. I say take them to town on this as a point of principle.

Pross

I’m always happy to volunteer time when I can to help out with something that interests me but if I subsequently have to deal with criticism or negativity from those you are trying to help I’m very much going to tell them where to go so I’m with FA on this one. Wait until they inevitably realise they can’t find someone willing to give their time freely who ticks all their boxes for whatever they class as being diverse and when they come back to you tell them to **** right off and point out your diversity credentials haven’t changed.

pangolin

The number of paid for nursery days that my son attends, vs the number he doesn't attend because of some bug he's caught at nursery.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

That is brutal - you offered to work for free and they thought the better option was nobody

TheBigBean

pangolin said:

The number of paid for nursery days that my son attends, vs the number he doesn't attend because of some bug he's caught at nursery.

The 48 hour rule is annoying.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

That is brutal - you offered to work for free and they thought the better option was nobody

No need to break it to me gently.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

I'm sure this will divide opinion, but I have just been rejected for something based on the "priority being to increase diversity".

Personally, I’d go to town on this. It could pay for Christmas, possibly a little bit more.

It's a voluntary position, so I'm not sure there is much to be gained financially. I'm still debating how to respond, as having slept on it, I'm even more annoyed.

Agree with Stevo. Sounds like there is a fundamental flaw in the coordination of their policies and selection procedures. If they have not collected the data on all the applicants, how can they make an informed decision on the basis of diversity (assuming that they have defined what they mean by diversity).

There is no other candidate. They are leaving the position vacant in the hope that someone else applies who will increase the diversity.

It is particularly annoying as I have been through the hassle of applying and arranging references only for the chair to change and me to be vetoed by the new chair on a diversity basis.

That is brutal - you offered to work for free and they thought the better option was nobody

No need to break it to me gently.

rick_chasey

Yeah it’s pretty bad. Not sure it’s defensible

kingstongraham

At least they tried to let you down gently - "it's not you, it's us".

Munsford0

A while ago my sister revealed she had a bottle of whisky she'd retrieved from Dad's house when clearing it. Did I want it? Rude to refuse.
Bog standard Red Label Johnny Walker, but the supermarket price sticker suggested it might date back to the 70s.
Last night she messaged to ask if i'd watched Antiques Roadshow; apparently featured a bottle of Johnny Walker worth a few quid.
I didn't see it and I'm not watching it on iPlayer because said whisky is long gone...

pblakeney

I may have done this one before.
I was working away from home and my wife gave me a (unknown label to me) 100ml bottle of malt that she'd had in a drawer since before we met to take up the road.
Drank it, enjoyed it, Googled it. £100 for the 100ml bottle! 😱 It was nice though. 😎

Pross

I'll never understand people who buy wine, whiskey, brandy etc. as an investment rather than to acually drink. What is the point in forking out thousands for an old bottle of wine that you then leave to get older and dustier in a cellar before selling it to some other mug who does the same?

shirley_basso

Are you being sarcastic?

It' just about the same as investing in anything.

I bought a bottle of whiskey for £300 about 4 years ago. Today worth £2k.

Tax free returns which far outweight my ISA returns over the same period.

morstar

shirley_basso said:

Are you being sarcastic?

It' just about the same as investing in anything.

I bought a bottle of whiskey for £300 about 4 years ago. Today worth £2k.

Tax free returns which far outweight my ISA returns over the same period.

But whilst it works financially, the point as I see it is that it’s stupid it does work. It is no different to non-fungible tokens if nobody ever intends to drink it.
The thing exists and has value only because it exists and people have assigned it a value.

I don’t blame you for being a supplier to said folly but what kind of idiot creates the demand.

shirley_basso

It's no different in investing in any object which has scarcity - art, cars, wine, spirits or, as you say it NFTs.

A lot of extremely expensive wine does eventually get drunk. The flipside is that, unlike art or cars, you can't enjoy them in the meantime.

Munsford0

I did enjoy the whisky. A lot smoother than today's JW Red label...

pblakeney

Pross said:

I'll never understand people who buy wine, whiskey, brandy etc. as an investment rather than to acually drink. What is the point in forking out thousands for an old bottle of wine that you then leave to get older and dustier in a cellar before selling it to some other mug who does the same?

I have a couple of rare bottles put aside. They are rare due to the boxes and bottles though not the contents. I can (and do) get similar contents at a supermarket.

Pross

shirley_basso said:

It's no different in investing in any object which has scarcity - art, cars, wine, spirits or, as you say it NFTs.

A lot of extremely expensive wine does eventually get drunk. The flipside is that, unlike art or cars, you can't enjoy them in the meantime.

No sarcasm from me, your last sentence is why I don't get it. With art you get to look at it which is why it was originally created and with cars you get to drive them (although I appreciate there are people who buy expensive art and then keep ity securely locked up in a safe for their entire lives or who own a beautiful classic car that permanently lives in a climate controlled garage - I don't get them either). Maybe if I was rich enough to spunk away a huge amount of money just to own something I would understand or maybe it is only the truly would spend that sort of money and then actually drink / display / drive their purchase rather than always worrying about whether is was gaining or losing money.

shirley_basso

Worrying about whether something loses or gains money is all relative to a) how much you've spent / invested and b) when you need to sell it.

If you can afford it, consider it part of a diversified portfolio. Presume you understand the theory, even if you don't like / agree with the idea of it. Buy scarce object, object becomes more scarce, price goes up. With art, cars, booze - it's all CGT exempt as well.

It's easy to be educated on it as well, as the assets are much more straightforward than, say stocks and shares. Whiskey has done well partly due to fashion which I concede is very hard to predict, but also because distilleries are going on acqusition sprees, some excellent distilleries have closed down, some high profile distilleries are ceasing production on some of their award winning whiskies etc etc.

With wine is more straightforward, particularly among super high value wines - it just appreciates as a) it gets better with age and b) as the wine gets drunk it becomes more scarce.

In my case with the whiskey, I don't really mind either way. I had a very good recommendation and it's paid off.

Unsure why you are quite so adamant not to 'get' it.

NFTs I will agree, for now, appear to be a scam.

Pross

shirley_basso said:

Unsure why you are quite so adamant not to 'get' it.

Mainly because if I had the money to be able to buy the 'best' of something I would want to enjoy it for how it was intended rather than simply wanting to acquire it so I could make more money from someone who wants it more than me. Fair enough, if there was a whiskey that tasted like shit but for some reason was incredibly valuable but presumably most whiskies / wines etc. that become valuable are because they are considered to be particularly good quality

It's probably not quite true to say I don't get it, it's making money. It's more I don't get people who have loads of money not wanting to enjoy their purchases instead of using them to make more money. What is the point in having all the wealth you need if you don't then use it to enjoy life?

briantrumpet

Pross said:

shirley_basso said:

Unsure why you are quite so adamant not to 'get' it.

Mainly because if I had the money to be able to buy the 'best' of something I would want to enjoy it for how it was intended rather than simply wanting to acquire it so I could make more money from someone who wants it more than me. Fair enough, if there was a whiskey that tasted like censored but for some reason was incredibly valuable but presumably most whiskies / wines etc. that become valuable are because they are considered to be particularly good quality

It's probably not quite true to say I don't get it, it's making money. It's more I don't get people who have loads of money not wanting to enjoy their purchases instead of using them to make more money. What is the point in having all the wealth you need if you don't then use it to enjoy life?

See quote wherever I put it about the inherent sadness of never thinking you have 'enough' so always wanting more.

kingstongraham

shirley_basso said:

Worrying about whether something loses or gains money is all relative to a) how much you've spent / invested and b) when you need to sell it.

If you can afford it, consider it part of a diversified portfolio. Presume you understand the theory, even if you don't like / agree with the idea of it. Buy scarce object, object becomes more scarce, price goes up. With art, cars, booze - it's all CGT exempt as well.

It's easy to be educated on it as well, as the assets are much more straightforward than, say stocks and shares. Whiskey has done well partly due to fashion which I concede is very hard to predict, but also because distilleries are going on acqusition sprees, some excellent distilleries have closed down, some high profile distilleries are ceasing production on some of their award winning whiskies etc etc.

With wine is more straightforward, particularly among super high value wines - it just appreciates as a) it gets better with age and b) as the wine gets drunk it becomes more scarce.

In my case with the whiskey, I don't really mind either way. I had a very good recommendation and it's paid off.

Unsure why you are quite so adamant not to 'get' it.

NFTs I will agree, for now, appear to be a scam.

I can't decide whether I like Damien Hirsts's NFT thing - it's deliberately annoying. But is annoying. But I like it being annoying.

You could buy one of his 10,000 paintings he did in the last year for $2,000 and you had to choose whether to own it as a physical thing, or as an NFT. If you chose the NFT, he would burn the painting. Obviously a great piece of commerce, and he kept 1,000 of the NFTs for himself in case they go up in value.

shirley_basso

It's very possible to invest in luxury items without having the means to enjoy them. Investment in non traditional assets does NOT equate to just 'consuming ' it. By that measure, your analogy could be re-drawn as 'why invest in a pension when you could simply spend the money?'.

You could also, in theory, buy 2 bottles of whiskey, drink one, then sell the other after 5 years.

Pross

I assume the 10,000 paintings in a year is an exageration?