richard_smith237

Exactly - all part of the pantomime and theatre - these places do not exist without 'police assistance' - meaning, ownership / partnership...

There, thats the official line and they're sticking to it !!.. the issue must have reached social media... Its good to see the police acting - well, 'acting'... the pantomime is in full swing. They've fed the media the lines that need to be heard, the 'go away money' has been paid. The place will be ripping off more people tonight.

Indeed - with the exception of a couple of 'key laws' - the laws in Thailand are for the most part are already very sound... Its the total apathy towards enforcement of those laws that creates the general state of farce in the face of these 'announcements'....

Feel free to charge whatever you want... .. Though someone on here is sure to ask if you have a work permit....

If I’m the last thing you read at night and the first in the morning, I'm not the one spending too much time here... Perhaps try not building your daily routine around me.... But you know what SF - you’re right - sorry if your feelings got hurt. Must be tough throwing little jabs all day and still managing to bruise your own ego in the process.

This is disgusting - its why we have ombudsmen. A few years ago, it took me months to get a straight, unambiguous answer from an insurance company about what they consider “high-risk” or “dangerous” activities. Months - just to get a simple yes or no. In the end, I had to really push.... I listed scenarios because their wording was so deliberately vague it was essentially meaningless. Is riding a bicycle “dangerous”? With or without a helmet? What about cycling in Bangkok traffic? Riding pillion on a motorcycle taxi? Sitting in a taxi with no working seatbelt? Skiing? Scuba diving? Riding a licensed motorcycle? Crossing the road outside a designated crossing? Elephant riding? Where exactly is the line? I’ll admit it - I was being difficult, stubborn. But frankly, I thought, why not? I had the time and I wanted an answer. If they’re going to hide behind vague, elastic wording, they can at least be forced to define it. And then there’s the alcohol clause. What does “under the influence” actually mean? Three pints? A BAC of 0.05? Something else entirely? Of course, everyone understands that getting blind drunk and riding a motorcycle voids your cover. That’s obvious. But what about normal, everyday behaviour? Where does that suddenly become their excuse to deny a claim? That’s the problem - it’s all left intentionally blurry. Not for clarity. Not for fairness. But for wiggle room. I had ski insurance for a skiing trip and had a wipe out - I still felt the need to say I “slipped on ice” rather than describe an actual high-speed fall - because I didn’t trust how they’ll interpret their own wording. That says everything. And yes, someone ( a very specific someone ) will naturally jump in to defend the insurers - he always does. These threads are catnip for him. But let’s be honest: If “risky activity” can be stretched to include things as ordinary as riding a bike or a horse - things children do every day - then it’s not a clause, it’s a loophole, and companies that rely on that kind of ambiguity to avoid paying out deserve to be called out for it.

Nope. Some people insist on reducing this into a crude binary - “good vs evil”, “good vs bad” - as if reality were that simple. When grief is expressed for the murder of three innocent youths in Iran at the hands of a barbaric regime, they immediately pivot. Out comes the whataboutery - Gaza, thousands of dead children, other atrocities - as though invoking larger numbers somehow cancels out, balances, or dilutes the horrors in question. It doesn’t. It never has. Stacking tragic horrors against one another is not moral reasoning, it’s deflection. It’s an attempt to avoid confronting a specific wrong by drowning it in a sea of other wrongs. Are some people so blinded by prejudice that they’ve lost the basic human capacity to recognise suffering wherever it occurs? Acknowledging one atrocity does not diminish another. And yet, the thinking on display here is so distorted it borders on willing blindness... Someone mentions three youths murdered by a fundamentalist, theocratic, authoritarian and barbaric regime, and the response isn’t outrage, empathy, or even reflection - it’s an immediate pivot..... “Yeah, but what about the kids in Gaza?”

Older than all the 150 or so schoolgirls killed by your country on orders of your 'other' country. But he gets a RIP because he was a wrestler 😠 So that’s your takeaway - to attack the USA? Can you genuinely not see the grotesque injustice inflicted by this regime on its own people? Or are you so deeply conditioned - so reflexively anti-American, so obsessively anti-Trump - that any evidence of Iran’s brutality is instantly dismissed, sidestepped, or conveniently ignored while you pivot to deflection? No one is disputing that the deaths of 150 schoolchildren is a tragedy of the highest order - horrific, indefensible, and a catastrophic failure. But do not delude yourself into false equivalence. A tragic mistake in the chaos of war is not the same as the cold, calculated execution of teenagers by a system designed to condemn them from the outset. One is a failure. The other is barbarism by design - and it appears you support the latter.

Firstly Op - which Mac-Mini are you running ???

More than likely they've delivered to the wrong house. What 'usually' happens with the delivery note (on lazada and shopee) is they take a photo of the package on your 'door-step' (or wherever they left it) - thats their proof of delivery - is there any such photo that you can find on the app. Its quite common for us to end up with parcels and even food deliveries intended for people in the next mooban - same house #... and they sometimes get our deliveries too !!... common enough, that we have their Line Messenger !!! So - its possibly that it was delivered to the wrong house. File an issue with Lazada that you didn't receive the item - you'll get a refund.

There's so many social media videos suggesting gifts as a way to try and get an upgrade, surely any flight attendant is cynical of the under lying objectives when gift are offended... IMO it might be viewed as being manipulative. Depends how the gifts are offered & how genuine the passenger appears.

Or the monitor is broken, or the HDMI cable is damaged or poor quality. If it is a model thats much older than 2 years & the op has told us it's 2 years old - there really is no helping... It's going to be impossible if he can't provide sensible info.

Op said his Mac-Mini is 2 years old - he needs to be sure before moving forwards. Op what model is it ? (Photo of the back / ports would help - help us help you)

No need to keep the sim. In the phone. The only potential issue is recycling of old numbers if your contract lapses. Your number once unused for a certain period will be released for use again & that could cause complications. IMO - it's best to transfer the account across to a number you are in control of.

As silly as it was to go on a trip to Iran, even without 20-20 hindsight, this was as daft as travelling to North Korea - their situation highlights the nature of the regime that holds a husband & wife. Must be hideous - no help - no hope - I'm surprised the regime has not started using them as a pawn against attacks. This situation must have been bad enough already - now it must seem impossible - I couldn't imagine many things worse.

First things first - isolate issue. Mac - Cable - Monitor a) connect Mac to a different monitor with a different (*high quality) HDMI cable. That should isolate if the issue is the Mac or the cable or monitor. (* Some HDMI cable are poor quality) Also check output resolution. Macs prefer certain scaling modes. Especially if it’s a 4K monitor: 1080p - sharp but huge 1440p - best balance Some scaled modes - blurry text Speaker sound.. your Mac minis should have a headphone jack.

There will, as usual, be some who blame the foreigner in any confirmation where a Thai is involved - we see it throughout this forum (from some). That said - I do wonder what the exact trigger point was... As the story states? Which indicates guys on a hair trigger looking for trouble... Or did the Japanese man create the escalation himself? Regardless - theres likely more than meets the eye to this story & of course we also have the gang of thugs piling in like rabid dogs - which is not uncommon in these areas. Discusting.

Oh.. its chilling to think of what could have happened... .. Hope he got an icy reaction from the police.

You've just posted in a separate thread calling the whole forum 'a pack of wafflers'... you think thats polite ? You are seemingly oblivious to the negative attention you draw due to your antagonistic posts - yet complain when they do receive attention - its rather juvenile and childish in a primary school cry-baby kind of way. I'll ignore, or comment on posts, your or others as much as I want, thanks - if calling out some of the rubbish you post is annoying you - thats just tough for you - you can scroll past my posts if you don't like them or avoid making juvenile, trollish or antagonistic comments in the first place.

Thats not an 'simple' answer as it has nothing to do with connecting his Mac-Mini to his Monitor. Op: Clearly there is no simple answer - A Mac-Mini should be very simple plug and play. Mac-Mini HDMI out directly into Monitor HDMI in - for some reason this is not working - but its impossible to know why without knowing more about the set up. Age / specs of Mac-Mini Type / Age / Brand of Monitor Rating of HDMI cable As far as the sound is concerned - most monitors have very poor sound quality. Is there a sound out port (i.e. headphone jack) can sound be wired to a separate speaker ? Can sound be output directly to a blue-tooth speaker? (this should identify if issues with the sound processing etc). More info is needed really.

I'm not the one who keeps crying that I was a attacked - I interact with comments you make, either positively or negatively based purely on content, and that's the same for anyone else's content. This idea that you feel you can post comment that are often triggering and inflammatory and everyone 'should' scroll by - is preposterous - the forum designed for discussion and that is exactly what you incite with many of you comments.

There's a distinction between speaking Thai and speaking Thai. Language is layered. There are registers - legal, technical, scientific - that most of us rarely encounter. We could beleive we are completely fluent, fully confident, until confronted with Thai legal language or medical language. There are times when fluency reveals its limits. Even among native English speakers, I've known some to lack comprehension of certain words and phrases - I see it enough on this forum alone and there are plenty of examples... Poor comma placement: "I love cooking, my family, and my dog” vs “I love cooking my family and my dog” “Let’s eat, Dad” vs “Let’s eat Dad" Poor word placement: “Only I said he was wrong” (no one else said it) “I only said he was wrong” (I didn’t do anything else) “I said only he was wrong” (no one else was wrong) “I said he was only wrong" (he wasn’t terrible - just wrong) Words that get switched about. “I need to loose weight” vs “I need to lose weight.” “Please bare with me” vs “Please bear with me.” “I’ll meet you their” vs “I’ll meet you there.” “Your going to regret this” vs “You’re going to regret this.” And then there's full on sentence ambiguity: “He saw the man with the telescope” (who has the telescope?) "Visiting relatives can be annoying" (are you visiting them, or are they visiting you?) “Flying planes can be dangerous” (piloting or being a passenger?) Thus, it follows, quite reasonably, that a non-native speaker may not possess complete command of specialised medical terminology when consulting a doctor and even mix up critical grammar. In medicine - the stakes are higher. Misunderstandings might not be not trivial - they can carry consequences. So, when faced with something potentially more serious, I don't want to engage with a Dr. unless their English is genuinely fluent. This serves two purposes: - First, it indicates that the Dr has trained or completed a fellowship abroad, bringing broader exposure and experience. - Second, and more critically, it minimises the risk of miscommunication - something that matters when the issue at hand is important. When the potential consequences are serious, clarity is not a luxury - it is essential and our Wife as a translator no matter how well educated won't help matters much there either. That said, a medical check-up for a driving licence is hardly complex. Even if I don’t know the Thai word for elephantiasis, we can manage perfectly well. Getting a bunch of Benzo's on prescription ?... Perhaps its better the Dr wasn't trained overseas anyway !!

I'm not so sure I doubled down.. I instead gave up - they reply was 100% AI - I did expect you to spot it, call it out and simply recognise the silliness. There is no productivity, no learning, no benefit in this discussion.

This recurring invocation of AI as a rhetorical bludgeon has drifted well beyond the bounds of reason and into the realm of wearying absurdity. One can, of course, acknowledge the legitimate and increasingly sophisticated role that artificial intelligence occupies within modern discourse, yet the reflexive deployment of such an accusation at the mere sight of structured, articulate prose suggests not discernment, but a curious aversion to coherence itself. Must every instance of fluency now be treated as suspect? The charge, repeated so casually, carries all the hallmarks of an unimaginative and rather indolent dismissal. If one is genuinely persuaded that a thread has been conjured into existence through algorithmic means, then the path of least resistance remains elegantly simple: pass it by in silence. Similarly, if my own contributions strike you as the product of some unseen machine intelligence, you are under no obligation whatsoever to engage with them. Discretion, in such cases, would seem the more dignified option. It is worth noting that, in another thread, johng saw fit to characterise me as an AI construct, a conclusion that appeared to arise less from evidence than from an inability to marshal a coherent rebuttal. Rumak echoed this sentiment, not out of analytical necessity, but because my remarks proved inconvenient to his position, and you, in turn, lent your support to both assertions. What emerges is a pattern that is difficult to ignore: the AI accusation as a convenient discursive escape valve, deployed in lieu of substantive engagement by those who, for whatever reason, find themselves unequipped to meet argument with argument. 🤯

You’re entitled to comment. So is everyone else. But you cannot claim you “mind your own business” while also calling others fragile, ill, and antagonistic. That is the antagonism. If you keep getting the same reaction, it is probably not everyone else. It is your tone. Disagreement is not an attack. People replying to you is how a forum works. If you expect others to scroll past your comments, then you should be prepared to do the same instead of crying that you are attacked.