Martin

@Clearthought65 @Jenny_1884 I agree with this. Most of the actual people who do most of the work and provide the care earn average wages that do not justify the fees.

@Jenny_1884 My daughters a vet She spent 5 years qualifying Her salary is not commensurate with that and she works damn hard. If you want to look at why vet fees are high look a the corporates who have taken over family practices for profit. Vets aren’t the problem

Who thinks Vets are charging too much for their services?

@Jenny_1884 Our daughter told us recently of a lady with a young Labrador spending thousands on vets to be ultimately told “the dogs pain is because of development (growing pains)”.

@Jenny_1884 Absolutely because they know that most people will do whatever they can for their beloved animals. We’ve spent loads on our dogs over the last few years. 2 are sadly no longer with us but the vets will keep taking as much as they can right up to the end.

@davehomeless89 @Tom_Barad Maybe your wording is misunderstood because it looks like you’re suggesting the money wasn’t his, but I’m guessing you’re pointing out the car wasn’t his. But had he stolen it? No. Did he regularly drive someone else’s car? Very likely all things considered. And the money? His.

@Tom_Barad Not when travelling with thousands of pounds in a car that's not yours

If the police ask you to unlock your phone Why would you not do it unless you have something to hide? So what's his excuse Tommy fans

@davehomeless89 We all have something to hide; stuff that is private.

@unclecharlieboy @DrHoenderkamp Shocking.

@DrHoenderkamp I pay just over £100 / month... Absolutely scandalous

Water bill 6 months to April £148 Water bill 6 months to Oct £614 How are people supposed to cope with these increases in every single area of life...

@Bills_gallery @DrMarianaClaire @DrHoenderkamp And Canva. That’s a trendy one! 😂

@DrMarianaClaire @DrHoenderkamp You missed out Excel.

So true. In my 60 years the world, and certainly the UK, has transformed and not (in many ways) for the better.

Dan speaks to brother Wendell, who's looking sharp as ever 🇬🇧 He has been to all of these events and predicts over 1 million in attendance. He also gives a message to everyone on their way to the event. @vowalesofficial

@thomasmstern @leonspight @sama But restricting a user from accessing their own chats is bonkers.

@leonspight @sama I’d guess GDPR laws that make handling personal data more restrictive. This just means they need all the necessary controls in place to protect personal data, and then lots of paperwork to evidence said controls

we have greatly improved memory in chatgpt--it can now reference all your past conversations! this is a surprisingly great feature imo, and it points at something we are excited about: ai systems that get to know you over your life, and become extremely useful and personalized.

@jurgenthoelen @sama @EU_Commission It makes no sense though. Referring to the content of our own chats.

@sama Thank you @EU_Commission , amazing job again. Rules and regulations but no innovation!

@sughanthans1 @sama It doesn't make sense to not be in EU. It's our own content. Where's the privacy issue if we are referring to our own chats?

@sama Sam, sad sad plus pro users in the EU. Any long term solutions for this?

@sama What about UK Plus users?

rolls out today for pro users and soon for plus users. (except users in the EEA, UK, switzerland, norway, iceland, and liechtenstein. call me, liechtenstein, let's work this out!)

@sama I think I'll start people I work for on a nice affordable subscription plan, and then a year or two in, shift them to a pay 'per second of my time plan' that means they have no idea what it will cost them but it will certainly cost more. How many clients will I lose? All of 'em!

an idea for paid plans: your $20 plus subscription converts to credits you can use across features like deep research, o1, gpt-4.5, sora, etc. no fixed limits per feature and you choose what you want; if you run out of credits you can buy more. what do you think? good/bad?

@sama Please leave Plus accounts as they are. Personally I hate counting (and watching) credits and tokens. Create a mid-tier plan if you must, a 'pay as you go' tier for those who want it. But please leave Plus accounts alone.

The current Labour government's approach to financial management and policy towards the elderly seems increasingly out of touch with the realities faced by many pensioners in the UK. While MPs, earning well over £90,000 annually, continue to claim expenses for everything from second homes to utilities, the elderly are left grappling with the stark contrast of their own financial situation. Recent discussions on platforms like X highlight a growing sentiment of frustration. For instance, there's been talk about the government's decision-making on pensions and elderly care, which appears to ignore the financial struggles of many over-65s. The triple lock on state pensions, while a promise kept, doesn't address the broader financial pressures like rising fuel costs, which hit the elderly hardest. The Labour manifesto's silence on certain pension reforms and the broader financial support for the elderly suggests a disconnect. Policies like the potential cuts in payments or the handling of care costs indicate a shift where financial burdens are increasingly placed on those least able to bear them. This comes at a time when the cost of living is soaring, with essentials like heating becoming luxury items for many pensioners. Moreover, the government's approach to expenses, where MPs can claim back significant amounts for what might be considered perks of the job, starkly contrasts with the elderly's situation. Many pensioners face the choice between heating and eating, with their fixed incomes unable to keep pace with inflation. The argument that MPs need these expenses to serve their constituencies feels hollow when compared to the basic needs of those on fixed incomes. This disparity isn't just about numbers; it's about empathy and policy direction. The government's reluctance to address these issues head-on, as seen in various X posts, suggests a policy framework that might prioritize fiscal conservatism over human welfare. The elderly, who have contributed a lifetime of taxes and service, find themselves at the mercy of policies that seem designed by those who've never had to budget for essentials. The outcry on social platforms reflects a broader societal concern: how can a government, so well-cushioned by taxpayer money, fail to see the plight of its most vulnerable? The Labour government's handling of elderly financial support, juxtaposed against their own expense claims, paints a picture of a significant disconnect. It's not just about the money; it's about understanding and addressing the lived experiences of those who've earned their rest but are now fighting for basic dignity in their golden years.

@TammyChen1420 True. It sure is. Curiosity might not have killed the cat, but it definitely dragged me back here! Let’s see what kind of rabbit holes I can fall into this time. 😂

@MartinKoss People's curiosity is endless

OMG it’s been how long? Damn. I bet I missed loads and loads of amazing stuff? 😂 I thought I’d stick my head round the door and see who’s about and what’s going on.

Labour said they’d freeze energy bills. Lie. Labour said they’d protect pensioners. Lie. Labour said they’re on the side of motorists. Lie. Labour said they wouldn’t increase taxes on working people. Lie. This Labour govt is rotten to the core.

Quite incredible how we’ve gone from save granny at every cost, to nah, let them freeze 🤷‍♂️#starmergeddon