TB

This probably won't arrive in time for Christmas (ordered from eBay), but you'd probably be able to find something in a similar vein in the UK:

Power Delivery on USB-C port, Quick Charge 3.0 on one USB-A port, two more 2.4 A USB-A ports. 48W in total.

And also this:

Small and lightweight, but very bright nonetheless, variable beam focus. Very happy with it.

But OT: I have a pair of these:

SRS-XB12: Lightweight (8.8 ounces each), appx 16 hours playtime, decent sound for the size, IP67 certified, and best of all - if you have two of them, once they're turned on, they link automatically into a L/R configuration without a cumbersome app once you've set them up.

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I originally wrote the topic title as “affordable”.  Someone else has changed it to “cheapskate”.  

New word filter on VT?

Interesting topic, and I really don't want to derail it - but do people in the UK really think of a Leatherman Wave as a 'cheapskate' Christmas present? Over here, the lowest retail price is 100 pounds.

On topic: it really helps to know the person you're buying it for - for a guitarist: a new set of strings etc, for a dedicated home cook it might be something else entirely...

30 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The longer it goes on for, the more horrified I am. 6 months ago the president publicly suggested that "medical doctors" check if injecting disinfectant could be a cure. 

  70m people voted for him. There are dozens of incidents that Trump ploughed through that would have finished any other politician, but even a lost election doesn't seem to have done it. American democracy is in its death throes.

He was being sarcastic *

* I doubt that particular definition of the word could be found in any English dictionary. In the same way as the old joke about "karaoke" originally being the Japanese word for "tone-deaf",  "sarcastic" might turn up to be the term for "musing in public while being totally out of my depth" in some obscure language.

1 hour ago, villakram said:

You are making the mistake of presenting ideal/laboratory use cases and imagining that is what is happening in everyday life. I am looking at the actual data in the actual world we live in. The large outbreaks ongoing globally, in the presence of large scale mask wearing empirically demonstrates that in practice masks are of little to no practical use. 

I have tried to point out that there is a difference between wearing a mask in order to protect the wearer, and wearing a mask in order to protect those around you. The first scenario requires the best PPE available and basic understanding of how to avoid getting infected.  The other scenario requires basic PPE, but also that everyone uses PPE. I have also pointed out that I have observed very sloppy wearing of masks. In this actual world. That doesn't help either the wearer or the society. I think you're so eager to prove that masks are worthless that you turn a blind eye to any evidence that might point to the contrary, and are also making the mistake of using a case study that shows little effect of masks in scenario 1 as an argument that there's little effect of masks in scenario 2 as well.

I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion, as we'll never agree.

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Yes, but the qualifications you gave regarding usage in the real world matter. The available research finds no evidence for the effectiveness of masks.

How many people have you seen walking around coughing and sneezing? That's not a relevant use case in practice. It's the latent and aerosol based transmission that matters here.

I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges here: if A is doubtful, then B must also clearly be wrong, which isn't necessarily the case. A case study showing that the mask wearer runs the same risk of being infected as a non-mask wearer doesn't say anything at all about the potential risk to the people around an infected individual.

It's almost like you're saying: well, if it isn't proven that wearing a mask will protect me, why should I bother wearing a mask in order to protect other people?

To avoid getting infected yourself (at least, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health), keeping one metre distance from other people at all times is twice as effective as wearing a face mask, even when worn correctly. Double the distance, halve the risk of getting the virus.

To avoid the risk of infecting others nearby: Wearing a mask - any mask - will stop droplets from reaching anyone in the immediate vicinity, and the quality of the mask doesn't matter that much.

I've seen more than enough people walking around coughing and sneezing these past months, thanks. To me, that's very relevant, even outdoors where droplets are the most important factor. AFAIK, aerosol transmissions are only thought to be possible when spending time indoors in the same room (especially with limited ventilation) as someone with the virus over a period of time.

7 minutes ago, villakram said:

Please cite the evidence showing how effective the masks are. It doesn't exist and with good reason, e.g., see the post by @TB above for starters. Masks in the real world differ significantly to masks in controlled laboratory environments.

Either I have expressed myself very clumsily or you're choosing to read it in a way that suits your point of view...

Masks serve two purposes: 1) to avoid spreading the virus to others if you happen to be infected. Even a home-made mask covering mouth and nose will help, even if the wearer doesn't know how to use it properly. The only mask that won't help is a mask with an exhale valve... Apart from that, even the crudest mask will help stopping droplets from sneezing or coughing - and 2) to avoid getting infected by droplets or aerosols - and then you need top PPE and training on how to use it properly.

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Then explain the ongoing covid case outbreaks in many disparate places with high mask usage. Sub micron virus being blocked by masks with 10s of micron sized pores, sounds legit. 

Perhaps it has something to do with a cold virus peaking in the winter, but what would I know. Think as you are told peon.

As I said, I'm a mere layman, not a scientist, and I cannot explain the Covid-19 pandemic... But I *do* know that a mask is a very general term. Surgical masks, homesewn stuff and anything inbetween. There's hardly any place anywhere you'll see high FFP3/N99 or even FFP2/N95 mask usage, which I believe is what you'd need to protect yourself. Anything below that level, you wear it to protect others *if* you have the virus. 

Secondly, a mask is only as effective as its wearer allows it to be. Have you had the proper training on how to use it? Do you wash your hands for 30 seconds before putting on the mask? Do you avoid touching the outside surface of the mask after you've put it on? Do you know how to remove the mask in the proper manner? Or do you re-use it, or even pull it down to your chin when answering the phone, having a coffee or a meal, then re-adjusting it? I've seen too many people wearing a face mask that only does it because it's required by the authorities or is socially expected of them, and haven't got a single clue about how it should be worn to protect against infection.

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

Another piece of research demonstrating no evidence for the efficacy of masks w.r.t. covid19 prevention. This uses actual people, living actual lives, not smoke clouds with "cool" background music on instagram.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

"A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

 

Of course, this is just a confirmation of the known w.r.t. the flu, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article.

"Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

I'm a mere layman (and haven't read the articles), but my immediate reaction to your summary is that it demonstrates no efficiacy for the wearer. I'm not surprised. Even medical staff with top grade PPE and proper training in how to use it get infected.

It would be interesting (but difficult) to measure differences in rates of infection of close contacts of participants and the control group. Non-surgical masks are used so you have less chance of infecting others, not to avoid getting the virus yourself.

11 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Norwegians can't get malt vinegar? Does this mean they put gravy on their fish and chips? 

Short answer: 1) yes 2) no

Longer answer: 1) You can find it in a few stores, but it's expensive, so I ask anyone going to the UK to bring back some. I still haven't found Dark treacle in any shop in Oslo.

2) Obvious reference to the Gravy Feud thread there, but no: never heard about gravy with fish and chips in Norway, never seen it as an option on any menu. Ketchup for the chips, tartar sauce/remoulade for the fish. Occasionally truffle mayonnaise or aioli for both.

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Still a useful insight, thanks. 

They don't seem to have treacle in the Finnish online supermarket. There is a dark syrup, tumma siirappi. I don't think it's the same?

The cheese is sealed in wax and wrapped, I might still go for that? It's what to put in the customs description? 

'Non alcoholic edible gift set', perhaps?

 

https://tulli.fi/en/private-persons/receiving-gifts/gifts-sent-from-abroad

It seems that you can receive food from EU countries as a gift without any special restrictions: https://tulli.fi/en/private-persons/faq/faq-gift-consignments 

"You can send cheese from EU countries as a gift."

Your customs description sounds reasonable enough.

I'd love to have a taste of that cheddar - maybe sometime in the future when it's possible to travel again...

(edit: no, the nordic dark syrup isn't the same - possibly a 50/50 mix of dark treacle and golden syrup.)

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Thanks for that.

They're Finns as it goes.

Oh. Nordic countries, not Scandinavia. Sorry.

21 hours ago, Xann said:

What's a good present from the UK to send to Scandinavia?

Tried the local gin before, Royal Mail intercepted it.

Thinking maybe Black Bomber and some quince jelly?

Norwegian Customs webpage in English: https://www.toll.no/en/goods/gifts/

Alcohol and tobacco a definitive no-no. Likewise, meat and dairy products. Even before Covid-19, you couldn't legally bring potatoes or potted plants back with you from a shopping trip to Sweden.

A cheese might (or might not) make it through the customs, though the quince jelly should be ok.

I'd suggest things available in the UK that is close to impossible to find in Norway (or prohibitibly expensive). 

I ask any friends or family going to the UK to bring back food items such as Black treacle (cannot find it anywhere in Norway) or Malt vinegar (ridiculously expensive, if found at all)

20 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

So, because 2020 has been shite, you start Xmas early, guaranteeing that by mid December it will have become totally stale? 

In a bad year, you need to make Xmas more special than ever. So you hold back for a proper intense few days around 25th Dec. 

I actually love Xmas, but unlike Roy Wood, I emphatically do NOT want it every day. 

When I was 20 (a long time ago  - 1976) I went to Vienna for a week, in mid-October, and they had all the Yuletide* decorations up already. It felt so strange. Back home in Norhern Norway at the time, nothing like that happened until 1st Sunday in Advent - it was unthinkable. Likewise, back then, Saturday treats were for Saturdays. Nowadays, Saturday treats have become an everyday occurrence, both for kids and grown-ups, and you will find the Yuletide* items in the shops from mid-September.

* Side note: I'm with you every inch of the way on making the holidays short and thus more special - but I beg to differ on one point: the Xmas spelling. To me, it's an Americanism. I'd love to hear someone actually pronounce it as it's spelt... Perhaps it's because English isn't my first language and thus, the word Christmas doesn't really have the implications of believing in some supernatural being? The word kristmesse (Christmas) is rarely used in Norwegian, 99,99% of the time it's jul (Yule/youletide), harking back to the days before Christianity had reached Northern Europe and people were celebrating that the darkness had been at it's lowest, and hoping that if everyone did things in the correct manner (e.g. not stirring the pot or doing any other circular motion counter-clockwise) the sun would indeed rise higher and higher again, and the circle of life would get a new turn of the wheel. 

6 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

Didn't need the tie 'shopping onto it...

It certainly belongs in the ice rink thread even without the tie.

I'm in two minds about which version I prefer: "dump Trump!"(with the tie) or "untied state of America" ...

I'd say both, even though the satire may be unintentional.

17 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

 

I stopped reading at  "The possible linkage between these two events was first discussed in an Oct. 31, 2019 article..." 

On 15/10/2019 at 12:22, HanoiVillan said:

You must be in the military. 

Many organisations use TLAs. There's even a three letter acronym for it...

20 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said:

I didn't know Kevin Friend had slow-mo eyes.

I prefer slowmo.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slowmo

hause music?

.