There were so many better options that I can’t even grant you a nod in this direction.

Nil points, yellow card, etc.

If memory serves, I think at least some versions of the Allegro had reasonably comfy seats. I’m afraid that can’t be said of the 2CV.

Also, the use of a “double skin” body, dropped by almost every manufacturer a decade or so before the Allegro, is really just another amusing tidbit we can taunt it with.

There absolutely nothing even faintly comic about the 2CV, it is an abhorrence at every level.

But I’ll grant you, the Allegro is definitely in the top 10.

The Citroen 2CV.

There are many cars that have something worse; three wheeled things, Tesla design, the Renault dash mounted gearstick, etc.

But there is no other “modern” car which so significantly fails in every way as the 2CV.

It has nothing that could be described as performance or ride or comfort. There is nothing about it that can be called practical or stylish. It has zero properties that any sane person could find desirable in a car.

It’s so bad that even the Trabant has less to damn it, and that really is terrible.

I think the best evidence that the 2CV is man’s biggest failure, should you really need any, is that you are more likely to see them in the country they were made, repurposed as a chicken coop.

If that’s not the ultimate failure, I don’t know what is.

You’re being way too pedantic. I said most home hifi and you’re example isn’t.

If you want me to be more specific, this article will cover pretty much anything you want know.

Wouldn’t they still be catered for? The toggle can stay where it is, just have the default as an option in settings.

I agree, just in the settings is fine for the default. I’ve wanted this since day one.

Not really. Most home hifi won’t be affected. I think that’s a reasonable generalisation.

Powered, as in active? No, those are connected internally. Cabling is then between the internal amp and a preamplifier, which is line level.

I would point you to the overwhelming lack of any reported incidents of speakers or amplifiers catching fire because the wires were too thin. This is simply fiction.

Coat hangers are generally much wider than any speaker wire, and the metal used makes little to no difference to the sound or the load. It is of no importance, you can do this safely.

As I’ve said, there are a few scenarios where you could run into problems, but these are very much outside of home hifi.

Username checks out! /s

No, they’ll be fine. And if they are connected reasonably well, will sound as good as any other speaker cable.

Of course, there are one or two scenarios where that can change, but for most people they aren’t applicable.

I don’t know how well known this is by now, but just in case, I’ll add it.

The quality of your speakers is not affected by the cable from your amp.

The connectors are more important in terms of physical contact, but almost any new connector will do. The wire itself makes no difference. Pay as much as you want but the sound will not be any different than if you used metal coat hanger wire.

I was warned off by locals and they did look very dodgy. It’s entirely possible they were referring to a different, more specific line, but I didn’t get that impression and I wasn’t about to find out for myself.

Apologies if I’m wrong, I’ll edit my comment.

If you go to Naples and the Amalfi coast, everything is expensive. That’s expected, but do not for any reason use the trains. Gangs will rob you, possibly worse.

But do go. Sorrento is lovely but very commercial. Find the small towns where the Italians go.

And visit Pompeii, it’s extraordinary.

EDIT - I may be wrong about the trains, please see the further comments in the thread.

Years ago Paris was great fun to drive around. Getting on and off the Périph can be hair raising but when you make it, the sense of elation makes you feel so alive!

I’m not selling it, am I?

Like?

Why, what were you expecting?

You haven’t asked me to explain anything, let alone asked me what I actually think.

How very odd.

its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.

Ok but you are ascribing this to my making of an assumption, which I am not.

I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists

And yet you asked for evidence and method, for which there is an awful lot. Which leads me to -

There is no instance of a society without religion

We aren’t talking about whole societies, just individuals. This can be studied very effectively.

There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn’t, as morality itself isn’t objective.

We aren’t talking about consensus, again it’s only individuals, which can be effectively studied.

These benefits are those claimed by the religious themselves, not whole societies.

You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task.

As I’ve said, we’ve been doing this for a long time and have vast data from many people. Social activity and personal motivation are well studied and include the religious.

Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.

Again, this is well studied with mountains of good evidence. It’s what I meant when I said I’m surprised you’re not aware of it.

You’re welcome to your view, but I disagree. Don’t feel you need to continue, but I’m happy to if you want.

I don’t believe correcting you would be helpful.

I’ve made my suggestions, which I believe you would be much better served by exploring.

I’ll repeat for your benefit, that if you want to know what someone thinks or what they mean, the best thing you can do is to ask them.

Give it a try, you may be pleasantly surprised or possibly even learn something.*

*Maybe or possibly are not guarantees. I make no promises, but I’ll try.

No, this is incorrect. Feel free to ask.

Well, thank you for that.

However, I’m not making an assumption. I’m merely pointing out that if religion isn’t necessary for the implied benefits, then why use that method? The fact is that no one uses blind faith as the basis for anything else important to them.

I don’t have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods. When presented with the assertion that they do exist, the lack of good evidence means that I remain unconvinced. I’m open to good evidence.

In the case of manipulation, as you call it, religious indoctrination from birth by family, community and peers is well documented. I’m surprised you’re not aware of this.

As for the assessment of benefits, there’s a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why. We know a lot about these motivations and there are clear lines to known conclusions. It’s largely psychology.

There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it, or that they demonstrate through their actions.

I hope this makes things clear but feel free to ask if not.

Thanks for this, really useful info!