I’m not really counting the first two, as they were more temporary wooden bridges. The 1209 London Bridge was the first, proper, permanent bridge across the Thames.

In general it can be said that poor people do not have the capital to make upfront investments which become profitable over time. Not even just literal investing, but investing in things like a more fuel efficient car, upgrading the insulation in your house/apartment to save on heating, buying non-perishables in bulk when there’s a good deal, buying a dish washer instead of hand washing…

So many things that let you save tons of money in the long run, require relatively large upfront investments, that poor people can’t afford. That’s a big reason why poverty can be such an insidious vicious loop, that can be extremely hard to escape from.

Two identical households, with identical income could have vastly different financial situations, just based on if their income was previously low, and they weren’t able to afford any of these investments, vs. If their income was previously high, having allowed them to previously make these large investments to reduce their long term monthly costs, and secure enough liquidity to be able to continue occasionally making these investments.

I mean it was the first ever permanent bridge crossing the Thames in London, and for a long time it was the only bridge in the entirety of east London (despite barely being east of the east-west midpoint of London). London bridge has a lot of interesting history, even if the current one is visually boring.

Jay Foreman has a fun video on the history of London Bridge (https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk)

There’s a fun video on the history of old/medium/new London bridge in Jay Foreman’s Unfinished London series:

https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk

There’s also a common (and completely untrue) urban legend that the guy thought he was buying tower bridge, not London bridge.

Also, even if you do decide to try it with a partner who wants to try your scheduled sex idea, I would definitely not start with sex.

Start slowly, by for example offering to jerk him off, or allowing him to masturbate to your naked body. Try it out slowly, and then see if you’re both comfortable with, and (at least he is) actually enjoying this type and level of intimacy, before jumping straight to penetrative sex.

It’s a very delicate affair, not just for you, but for the man as well. Having sex with a woman who is unresponsive, and just passively accepting, has a potential to make your partner subconsciously feel like they’re abusing, or even raping, you (even if you explicitly give consent, the subconscious is rarely swayed by rational arguments), which has the potential to lead to serious sexual trauma.

Even with high sleight of hand, there’s so many vault doors to open, that unless you roll exceptionally well, you’ll still blow through a bunch of lock picks. It’s just so much faster to stand in the middle of the room and spam knock 10 times, vs. needing to o go through 1-3 lock picking rolls for every door you wanna open.

Though nothing compared to the high security, unknockable safes, those are pain in the Ass. Even with level 12 rogue astarian, and graceful cloth for advantage on Dex checks, it still usually takes me around 3-4 attempts on average to pick each high security safe.

Scheduled sex is itself fine, however most men (at least those worth considering as a long term partner in the first place) derive much, if not most-all, of their enjoyment of sex of the human connection, and feeling the desire, arousal and pleasure of their partner.

Sex with someone who isn’t enjoying it, and just passively accepting does not sound appealing at all to me, and I’d be weary around men who are open accepting such an arrangement, because imo it strays into areas of ambiguous consent.

At that point, it’s probably similarly enjoyable, and much healthier, if your partner takes of their urges by masturbating. You could potentially even support a future partner in that, by e.g. gifting him solo male sex toys like fleshlights. It shows that you genuinely care about his pleasure, even if you’re not into actively participating in sex. This is for example a relationship I (as a cis man) could exist in perfectly happily.

And whilst it’s obviously not for everyone, and it can be emotionally challenging, and requires a high degree of emotional maturity and communication, I would also at least consider the potential for an open relationship, where your partners urges could be satisfied without your participation.

The high security vaults are yeah, but I still use him for the vaults ahead of the main safe room, those can be knocked

I think the primary distinction is that a weapon in a criminal context is typically something that is used to threaten/coerce someone, or to enable you to cause (more/more severe) physical harm/incapacitation in a physical altercation.

Date rape drugs aren’t used to threaten/coerce people, and whilst they can cause harm, it is generally not the intended goal when someone uses them. And intent/willingness to use a weapon to physically harm someone, in my opinion, is a relevant distinction to relatively “”“peacefully”“” knocking someone out. Of course committing date rape is still an utterly horrific thing, and people who do it should be charged and held accountable to the fullest extent of justice, but it is still different from threatening someone with a weapon and forcing yourself on them. (Also, whilst I have no actual data on this, it seems logical to me that a conscious victim is far more likely to receive (more serious) injuries as they struggle, vs. an unconscious one)

So whilst I agree that classifying date rape drugs as weapons is a good move, there definitely are relevant distinctions as to why drugs are typically not considered weapons.

“They’re extradonarily narrow” whilst literally talking about an apple patent that covers ANY type of digital display device whatsoever that has rounded corners.

That’s not even close to “extremely narrow” in scope.

Extremely narrow in scope would be defining a certain radius of curvature (within a small +/- range), in combination with an aspect ratio (again, with a small +/- margin) and for a specific class of screen.

That would be an adequately and acceptably narrow design patent.

And on top, there needs to be a limitation on design patents (any patents, frankly) that makes them unenforceable if the holder of the patent hasn’t had a product matching the patent on the marker for several years, and isn’t currently and actively working on R&D to develop such a product. (With some common sense clauses to prevent abuse, such as ordering one employee to spend 5 minutes a month working on a concept so that you’re technically perpetually engaged in R&D, or listing a depreciated product for an absurdly high price that no one will ever pay, so you can say technically it’s still on the market without needing to actually still manufacturer/support it).

Though I’d be happy to hear counter arguments for why this would be a bad idea.