Why not put that on the sign then instead of some vague, unrelated bollocks that doesn’t justify the removal? If that’s the case then I feel the wording on the sign is borderline dishonest.

That’s why they stopped at three. The fourth bridge always takes forever to paint.

I think it’s just an assumption based on the mode of society at that time in history. If it was built in the 12th century it was built by what we would now consider slaves. In the 1100s the land was divided into fiefs and the lord of that land considered the people who lived and worked on the land as part of that land: serfs. Unless this bridge was an exception to the rule, then serfs would have undertaken all the labour that got it built.

“That Thou Art Mindful of Him” is the robot story of Asimov’s that scared me the most, because of this exact reasoning happening. I remember closing the book, staring into space and thinking ‘shit…we are all gonna die’

There definitely is an element of people just not liking it because it’s new, but there’s also an element of not getting any say in it whatsoever.
Also, they really do get in the way. They make it harder to get a good seal between your mouth and the bottle at any angle, and at the top they hit your nose. They are slightly harder to use, especially if you’re using one hand for any reason, including if you only have one hand. Removing them without tools results in a sharp bit of plastic which pokes and irritates your skin.
Finally, this is another patronising effort which makes consumers lives more difficult (by whatever amount) while not doing enough to combat plastic waste.

Yup. This is the last vestiges of the diminishing returns of the doomed strategy of blaming consumers for climate change.

The Expanse, but with Avery Brooks hyperventilating whenever the stakes get above the average level of a self-checkout operation.
Would watch

It’s only the US and Canada that use “aluminum” though isn’t it? The rest of the world and most languages have it as “-ium”.
Humphrey Davey actually changed his mind and changed it to “-ium” shortly after discovering it.
Also, IUPAC has “Aluminium” as the primary spelling, though both are acceptable.

You’ve misread my comment I think. Unions can coordinate and organise together. So nobody would be leaving their fellow worker to fight by themselves.

Not so. It makes sense to organise in trade unions. The heads of those unions are on the same side most of the time, as it would be in this case, and they can easily coordinate their actions. But in some cases the interests of one trade have no bearing on another, or are even in opposition, in which case it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to organise a balloted action across the entire union. Thus nullifying the strength of the union and playing right into the capitalist’s hands.

No, not at all. I’m saying that the op was complaining about religion, not faith. So talking about people who hate others due to their religion seems a bit off-topic.

There are absolutely people who hate people for being religious.

Can you point to one? I don’t see any.

Careful- they only talked about hatred of religion, not the religious. A subtle but enormous difference.