Youtube comments of TJ Marx (@tjmarx).
-
824
-
810
-
530
-
353
-
313
-
305
-
289
-
241
-
228
-
216
-
215
-
188
-
176
-
143
-
140
-
133
-
130
-
113
-
110
-
109
-
106
-
100
-
94
-
91
-
87
-
86
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
78
-
77
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
71
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
As usual, Helia gets absolutely everything she is saying wrong.
A sanction only applies to the country the sanction is issued by. A UK sanction for example only applies to companies* in the UK trading with the entities named in the sanction.
There are no sanctions that apply to Russian oil from China, India or any of their other customers. Russia does not need to hide their trading with these countries, its legitimate and any attempt to prevent it would be both illegal and an act of war.
The sanctions were written BEFORE the inflation crisis and were the driving force behind high* inflation. There would have been no high inflation if those sanctions didn't exist. We only hurt ourselves.
The dark ships move oil to Algeria, where Algeria acts as a third party escrow to sell Russian oil to France and Germany which is one part of why they weren't hit by western high inflation as hard. This is well documented and both countries are open about it. France24 covered it back in 2022. It's perfecfly legal because "🤷♂️🤷♂️ hey, hey, we're buying from Algeria. We can't control where they get it from". Germany takes the extra step of using France as an additional third party, so they buy the Russian oil from France, that they buy from Algeria.
Russia does not rely on ships to transit oil into India and China. They're neighbours sharing borders with each other.
Please remember, Helia is the same fool who every few months for the first 18 months of the war in Ukraine kept trying to tell us the Russian economy was about to collapse even though all the data said it's stronger than ever and the IMF agreed it wasn't going to collapse. Helia lives in a fantasy world, filled with activism ideology and no facts.
The sanctions only hurt US, they do not hurt Russia. Any talk of further sanctions* should be opposed unless you're interested in even higher prices. To be clear before the yankville led sanctions, yankville wanted the EU to replace Russian oil and gas with yankvillian shale gas. Germany under Merkel said no because the shale product yankville are selling is only a 1/4 as energy dense so you need 4x as much. After the yankville led sanctions came into place inflation happened because suddenly europe couldn't buy from Russia anymore so they had to buy from the open market which didn't have the supply. That pushed up prices and caused energy costs to go through the roof and the CPI shot up. Then the pair of Nordstrom pipelines were attacked and destroyed by an entity that's apparently too secret to be disclosed. So without those pipelines the EU agreed to buy that shale product from yankville and permanently stop buying from Russia. It took a few months for yankville to ramp up production and exports, but once they did the EU stopped buying on the open market and energy prices stablised causing inflation to go down. That's objectively what happened. Look it up.
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
@standoughope The world record for surviving without eating is 360 days, 5 days short of a full year.
The world record for surviving without water is 45 days.
There is in reality no hard and fast rule of how long someone can survive without food or water. It depends on many factors including but not limited to individual body mass, individual fat stores, individual metabolism, energy being exerted, environmental temperature, core body temperature, weather conditions, exposure, fluid loss, etc.
As a general rule someone with lots of fat stores can survive longer than someone with fewer fat stores. Indeed, that's the entire point of subcutaneous fat.
17 days drinking water but not eating is entirely unremarkable.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
Modern "adults" are less emotionally and intellectually mature/developed than children were back then.
It's the result of the post modern psychology that gave the millennials rewards for showing up, constantly unearned praise and the insistence that the dumbest brain fart was an equivalent opinion in worth to the wisest, well considered analysis.
There's no going back from this. Each generation is limited by their own experience, can only work inside those limitations and can only past on those limitations to successive generations.
Successive generations will attempt to rebel, but when you're starting with faulty software, it's difficult to progress towards something better. Instead what we see is aimless "progress" towards an ever more limited, self indulgent and intolerant world view.
This is not by any means the fault of millennials themselves, they, as all generations are; are merely a product of their upbringing. Realistically this started with "the greatest generation" whom seemed determined to win that title by purposefully retarding the development of their children the baby boomers and it was all downhill from there.
However the reason I single out millennials is because they are the first generation whose development has been stunted to such a horrific degree that as a generation they are incapable of navigating daily life.
There are of course exceptions to every rule in individual cases, but overall they hold true on the generational level, at least in the west. This is how western civilization collapses.
Edit: Having a quick read through the thread has somewhat demonstrated my point.
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
I've heard this argument parroted frequently by philosophy, yet it holds little in truth with what we really see.
This is not merely a supposition, many of the assertions are indeed testable hypothesise.
For example, the assertion about the removal of limbs can be tested in amputees and to a lesser extent quadra/paraplegic. Both cohorts report feelings of being less themselves with the loss of a limb. Here the phenomenon of phantom limb syndrome gives us a clue into how much self is placed in our bodies.
Another cohort equally worthy of consideration in such a hypothesis are organ transplantees. Here individuals post transplant regularly report feelings of living with someONE else.
To the argument of atomic change, this is hardly isolated to humanity. It is equally present in all things living, dead and inanimate across the entirety of the universe. This includes your house, car and the device you're reading this comment on now. Does precession make them no longer yours after a period of time?
Moreover if we want to talk in those terms, we leave tiny pieces of ourselves everywhere we go. Similarly we incorporate small parts of everything we ingest. By your argument vegans are better described as plants and unbeknownst to you your cat is really a fish in disguise. That's not even getting into the realities of quarks and electromagnetism. The argument appears illogical.
An argument based on cellular regeneration is even less so as cells do not pop into existence from nothing. They are born through division. Cells indeed die, but not before recreating themselves. If I make two identical clones of you, which one is you and how can it be distinguished? Now as a thought experiment imagine that instead of me creating clones of you, before you died as a last act you organically self replicated a younger adult version of yourself before discarding the remaining lifeless husk. Which would be you? Could they be distinguished in any meaningful way? That is how cells do.
Ultimately the this entire argument from philosophy can be surmised as an attempt to point to a single indivisible you. But the argument never considers the possibility that self is divisible without degradation.
Consider, if we're in a plane crash stranded somewhere remote awaiting rescue. During it's course your friend dies. If I cut off their leg and offer it to you as food would you not shy away as result of your identification of the limb as being a part of your friend?
Or to put it in a perhaps less vulgar way, the fresh broccoli you buy in the store has been separated from the plant. Is it still broccoli? How about if I remove the stem, are we still having broccoli for dinner or something else?
It would seem to me that we are a transitory sum of our parts, with no part more we than any other. So too with division the parts remain equally us. So to the question "who am I", one might say I am change.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
He was texting a 15 year old girl in Germany immediately before this. His grandmother whom he lived with was upset over his phone bill because of all the calls and texts to Germany. She got on the phone to AT&T to restrict his phone.
20 minutes earlier he told the 15 year old in Germany he loved her and pledged to visit her "in the summer" to meet for the first time. They had met online.
In a fit of rage at the prospect of not being able to talk to a stranger he'd never met, he shot his grandmother. He immediately text the girl after doing so, telling her what he'd done. After some back and forth between them he resolved to shoot up a school, seemingly in an attempt to disguise the nature of the crime, and the rest is history.
This wasn't a mental health issue. This wasn't a very for help nor an attempt to take his own life. This was a self entitled teenager, whom was making plans to go to Germany 20 minutes prior and made a series of terrible choices in anger. That's the cold hard truth.
The reality yankville has to wrestle with is that even if you took away all guns, you'd just be shifting these crimes to a different weapon. The inconvenient truth is, there is no quick fix for this problem. This is a symptom of a sick, disconnected, narcissistic society. The only way to stop this stuff from happening is to fix the socio-cultural issues that drive it. You can't fix those until you get religion out of office, ditch the team based politics and realise you're all in this together so you have to compromise, negotiate in good faith and work for common good not ideology.
23
-
These edgelord references to 1984 from people whom have clearly either never read the book or didn't understand it are always a joke.
1984 is a political exploration of the way the USA, UK and Russia all operated in 1948. It uses projected hyperbole to discuss the political dystopia that had formed in the post WW2 superpowers. It's a book that rallies against both major economic systems of the time capitalism and communism, and finds them more similar in their social outcomes than different.
The conditions of 1984 have existed since then, that's 75 years. In all likelihood no one reading this comment has ever lived in a world without those conditions. Making references like those in this thread to 1984 are like being trapped in a box you've never seen the outside of and claiming that it looks like you might be trapped in a box in the future as if you aren't already.
P.S. Something meaningfully changed in western societies at the turn of the millennium. One can look at video across the decades to see it, particularly in ads and other people's home movies. Prior to 2000 every decade has a distinct look, feel, fashion and manner to it. Since 2000 it all constantly repeats, the same fashion, the same movies, the same games, the same cultural expressions, constant nostalgia waves, nothing new, nothing unique, nothing defining. Only recycling.
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
This second argument about immigration and race is a bit of a non-starter. It's those who understand the importance of immigration to economic development trying to use a dead argument against those who oppose immigration.
I live in a country (not in Europe) with a great deal of ethnic diversity, and very little genuine racism. One has to think about identity however in 3 different ways. None of these ways precludes the other
There is the national identity, that is all citizens. People who can say they live in and belong to that country, which includes 1st generation immigrants.
There are those naturally born in the nation. This can include 1st generation people born in the country to immigrant parents.
Then lastly, there are those people's for whom the country is the traditional home of their ethnicity or race.
This separation is important because not only does it help to understand where society is today, where it was and where it will be tomorrow, but it allows us to acknowledge first nations people's all around the world.
More importantly it allows us to understand how and why society functions as it does. The latest arrivals to any human group, be that a friend group, a place of employment or indeed scaled to a community, state or nation, will also have lower social credibility and less social acceptance than those who have been there a long time or whom founded the group. Human groups of any size have a bit of a probationary period for new comers, it's how we work as a species.
Acknowledging there is a difference between a first nations person and simple national identity does not preclude nor undermine acceptance of immigration. Immigration is a necessity in all societies, particularly where natural births are in decline &/or where skills shortages exist.
Acknowledging the difference between a first nations person and someone who came later, and ensuring that first nations traditions continue to be woven throughout society is about respect.
Germany understands this otherwise they wouldn't have apologised to Namibia. Try making the "this is not what someone from Namibia looks like" argument there, preach about Germanic immigration to them and call them "right wing racists" if they don't accept it.
See how that lands. It wouldn't, it would indeed be a racist act to try and everyone knows it.
Throughout Europe there are indeed first nations people's. Germany has first nations people's, they indeed look a particular way and have a particular ethnic/tribal heritage. Acknowledge them, it doesn't hurt the immigration argument. Acknowledging strengthens it.
When you try to demonise people or thoughts all you achieve is pushing those people into the company of extremists. You radicalise them and create a serious problem.
Running a successful society is about give and take, it's about making everyone feel heard and acknowledged even if they don't get their way.
One can certainly acknowledge that ethnic germanic people's exist and look a particular way, whilst explaining or making an argument why immigration is so important. One can listen to their fears or concerns and work together to find solutions. That's what a genuinely inclusive and tolerant society looks like.
Making an argument like the one is this video will only serve to alienate, draw more AfD support and make a return to extremism more likely.
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Firstly, what Madagascar is experiencing is not about general climate change. Whilst the region may be experiencing higher temperatures (I don't know, I haven't checked the raw dataset yet) that isn't the main driving force.
This is about localised desertification caused by deforestation which is plain to see even in the vision of this report. Play spot the tree in the B roll, and remember that Madagascar was once a densely vegetated island.
When you remove the trees you destroy the microclimate, which leads to hotter local temperatures, less rain, less ground water, top soil erosion and desertification.
It's the same phenomenon that caused the "dust bowls" in the yankville mid-west during the great depression.
It has a simple solution, one that is being deployed throughout northern Africa and parts of the middle east to stop the spread of desertification. Plant tree groves. They have to be planted in the correct configuration and density, but once completed they create a natural wind breaker, a cooling microclimate and increase rainfall.
Secondly, live aid was a freaking music concert that did very little to help world hunger. Famine has only increased. Mentioning live aid has to be a joke.
Thirdly, it's disingenuous to compare global food waste with famine inside a piece about climate change. Beyond the reality of the food waste being largely perishables unsuited for transportation, what remains after the unsuitable perishables have been subtracted requires plastics & petrochemicals to transport safely, and would generate high volumes of emissions to get it to these locations.
This is a problem with local agribusiness, that must be solved locally. Global food waste qualities, whilst still a problem for other reasons, are completely irrelevant to the equation at hand.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@sweatyhaggis4303 You have to acknowledge the reality that there is a significant difference between the university of 1980/1990 and the university post 2000. They are entirely different places, where the value of a degree changed because universities changed.
In the 80s and 90s, University was difficult. It was hard to get into and even* harder to finish. It might seem clichè but when I went to university we were told at orientation to look to our immediate left and immediate right because only 1 of the 3 of us would likely finish the program. They were correct and that's how all programs were, only the creme of the crop got a degree. They also taught differently, they taught how to think,.
So degrees had value because an employer knew you came work ready, able to think and take initiative, you had creativity, understood the world, were well read and you were the creme of the crop.
The school you went to mattered because universities had reputations with employers for having graduates at X skill level.
Today's universities don't operate like that, they* operate more like what we used to call paper mills. That is, places where they were essentially giving away degrees for cash. They don't teach you how to think in universities today, they teach you what to think and that's having a negative impact on society.
More relevant to you however is that they don't teach students to be work ready anymore, they teach students to pass tests in order to get as many people through to graduation as possible so the university can make as much money as possible. They've gone from institutions making a few million a year, maybe double digits if they were a particularly prestigious school, to making tens of billions a year or more each.
That's why your degree no longer has the same impact on employers, because most of the people with them graduating after 2000 shouldn't have one.
And the new post grad study system is a complete joke. A masters used to mean you had worked in your field for a decade, then gone back and gotten your masters. A doctorate could only be gained after 25 years in your industry. Today they go from undergrad to post grad study without skipping a beat and having never worked a day in the industry. It makes those titles near meaningless.
The university system is broken. It's designed to be a system for the top minds and no one else. But it's being used to push as many inadequate people through as possible.
When too many people have a thing, and that thing is also provided at a lower quality, it has significantly less value to all.
Moreover, the labour market is a market the same as any other. Employees are the product, an employer looks amongst the available candidates, checks their features (education, experience, personality, etc) then decides on a specific model (individual). That is to say having a degree never guaranteed you employment, it's just an added "feature" on your resume, or perhaps a minimum starting point to even apply for a particular role. But it's only ever been a fraction of the equation, you still have to compete on all the other factors as well.
Edit: Fixed typos
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
This story has some serious problems with it.
1. It claims that access to pain killers for terminal patients is a basic right provided to everyone "in the west". This statement is blatantly false. "The west" is not one homogeneous thing, it's a loose collection of different countries with European settlement and a diverse range of laws, economies and access to medical treatment. A number of states in Yankville are currently grappling with a spike in patient dumping for example. That's where the hospital has security guards bundle up a patient who can't pay, no matter how sick they are, and they literally dump them on the sidewalk outside. Many die right there were they were dumped.
2. You are doing a story about Malawi, but keep providing statistics for an entire continent comprising 56 different countries with very wide ranging cultures, economies and access to care. Trying to group the Egyptian healthcare system in with the DRC for example is utterly laughable. Doing a story in Malawi and acting as if that represents the whole of Africa is like doing a story in Georgia as if it represents the whole of Europe.
3. You're on the ground in Malawi, you're getting access to hospitals, government run institutions, you can surely ask them for their statistics for Malawi specifically. If no statistics exist for Malawi, then your statistics for africa as a whole can't possibly be accurate.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@veryboliao This isn't true.
Singapore does have a robust water recycling program, that is absolutely correct. However not ALL water is utilised in that program, some water is not eligible and discharged out to sea or into the environment.
From the website of PUB, Singapore's national water agency.
"Changi Water Reclamation Plant (Changi WRP) treats used water by effectively removing the solids and nutrients that are present in the used water. After treatment, the treated used water is safe to be returned to the environment or channelled to NEWater factory to be further treated into highly purified NEWater."
They tell you directly in the video we watched no less than twice, that the water used in this process is "released back into the ecosystem" (2:24).
The reason it isn't eligible for recycling is the high presence of detergents and lipids dissolved in the water which could not be affordably broken down and removed through a treatment plants processes. There is no choice but to release into the sea, that's how this process works. Trying to put it back into the water system would make an awful lot of people sick.
So yes, there is absolutely pollution of the waterways through this process. Still on the point of pollution, I'm not sure if you understand this but solids removed from treated water still pollute, they're disposed of the same way all biotrash is. Either through landfill (which Singapore has little of) or by incineration. You know, just like cremation...
So called "aquamation" is a feel good marketing pitch for a violent chemical reaction that results in no environmental benefit. It isn't better contained than cremation at all. At least cremation can utilise carbon capture and storage if the government mandated it.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
You mentioned Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple but you failed to mention Twitter, Microsoft, IBM, CloudFlare, reddit and Oracle. Visa and MasterCard probably should be included in there as well.
This really isn't a difficult problem to solve. For some reason we just seem to be reluctant to solve it. It's the job of criminal justice systems and governments to enforce laws and make laws that are enforceable. It is not the job of private companies to act as law enforcement or government.
Platforms like Twitter, Zoom, Teams, Meet, Facebook feed/groups/chat/comment/WhatsApp/etc, webmail, etc are all communications platforms. They are the digital age version of the telephone. Telephone companies tried to play the same games when telephones first came into existence but we got them under control. We need to treat these platforms as the communications utilities they are. They should have no say over what is and isn't allowed to be communicated on their platform, they are a utility. Policing of content should be left entirely for law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction, not a bunch of undertrained casuals on minimum wage. Classification as the communications utilities they are also solves the privacy problem. In the same way your phone company can't listen in on your call without a lawful request from law enforcement equipped with a warrant, so too should these platforms be unable to "listen" in on any communication you have on their platform where you reasonably believe it isn't public. They are then only allowed to benefit from things you choose to make public.
Platforms like YouTube, Facebook Watch/Instagram TV, Netflix, Disney+, etc they're the television of the the digital age. In the case of YouTube and Facebook Watch/Instagram TV, they're better compared to a cable TV provider. The same rules should apply.
Platforms like AmazonAWS, Microsoft Azure, CloudFlare, IBM and Oracle provide background utility infrastructure for the internet. They should be classified as utilities and impartial about what they host. It's the job of law enforcement to enforce laws.
Operating systems that spy on you are a bit more complex to fix. A legislated "don't track me" option at first boot that requests payment for the operating system if enabled seems fair. It's then up to individuals to decide whether they want to pay for the OS upfront or through data collection.
15
-
It's because of economic ignorance like this comment that the economy is in this position.
It's simply not how this works at all. Inflation increases costs for business. Imports cost more because the pound is worth less, and that dominos across the supply lines. As core selector prices like energy go up, business has to contend with those inputs as well.
That all means prices have to go up.
If you put wages up that's just another cost businesses have to deal with and are unable to absorb because of all the other cost pressures they're under. So wage rises mean price hikes and then you just go back and forth creating structural inflation. With more money in people's pockets that also devalues the pound further leading to even higher prices on imports and the entire thing above again so there's two forces at play pushing up inflation every time you increase wages. This applies regardless if it's a public or private employer.
You can not increase wages as a means to handle high inflation and the cost of living trouble it brings. I guess that's also an important fact to note. Inflation can cause cost of living to increase but they aren't the same thing. Inflation is devaluation of currency.
This isn't about profiteering. It's about the value of currency. It's devalued because the economy is worth less, isn't seen as a reliable investment and has little to offer.
There's too much money in the system, too much debt with the nation that has no ROI to it and far, far too little productivity.
When people strike obviously their productivity drops. The more these strikes go on, the worse off everyone is, the higher prices wil go and the longer it will be before they can get a pay rise.
The UK has had a budget deficit since 2000 under the Blair/Labour government and has continued in a bipartisan way. That deficit started then at £50Bn EACH YEAR and has since increased to just shy of half a trillion pounds
That means the government spends more money every year than they make in tax revenues. So they have to borrow money with interest (mostly from China) to pay for ordinary everyday services. Things like the NHS. Most policies that go in unfunded. As inflation goes up so too does the interest on the loans the government is taking out, so now the government is taking out new loans in order to pay the interest on the old loans., often from the same credit source. More money is also being printed to handle the interest which further devalues the currency and lifts inflation.
This is a bipartisan stuff up, both major parties got the UK to this point. Neither one deserve your vote. The treasury say baseline taxes need to increase by 17% in order to solve the problem which has to happen sooner or later.
If you want to make this problem better, be more productive at work. If you're in a position to do so, open your own business even as a side hussle in an exports market you can meaningfully compete in. The higher UK exports go in key indicator industries the better off everyone will be.
Ironically the more productive the economy becomes the more competitive the job market also becomes and thus, wait for it, higher wages go.
Striking is only a useful tool when the economy is going very well, the employment market competitive but through some other means a specific or industry wide employers are refusing ignore market forces and increase wages. The UK hasn't had an economy that vibrant in around 20 years. So no. It isn't brexit either. The quicker the unions lose public support the quicker they go back to work and the quicker the economy can start to right itself.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
I strongly disagree.
First and foremost DTC can be but is not always white labelled products. For many DTC businesses they have a manufacturer create their designs to their spec. Calling those companies middlemen is like calling Apple a middleman because Foxconn build the iPhone. It's disingenuous.
Few businesses have the resources to build out their own in house manufacturing capacity, let alone maintain it long term, particularly with all the safety overhead whilst also running the consumer facing side of the company. That's why most well known brands outsource their manufacturing. Outsourcing allows new brands to scale.
Those DTC brands who do white label often make slight variation in the product to distinguish it.
Moreover to claim that these brands have no IP, or that IP is all that matters is, put kindly, naive. A brand is an IP, I can think of a certain ex yankville president whom made his money simply by selling the right to attach his last name to projects without him actually building or doing anything.
And I can certainly think of quite a few "luxury" brands whom have existed since the 70s or 80s whom have always white labelled.
Try buying a phone that doesn't have a sony camera in it and a screen made by sony, Samsung, LG or TCL. Are you going to claim a Pixel with a Sony camera, Motorola radios and Samsung screen isn't Google's IP? The IP is the precise way they put those things together, not the parts themselves.
Ones brand is their biggest and most valuable IP. Patents are nice to have, but they expire. Manufacturing trade secrets are nice to have, but unless you're into food or drink, they won't stay trade secrets for long. Brand is what matters, brand is what inspires loyalty, brand is what creates perceived value, brand is what drives returns. Brand and executive stewardship is what make something worth investing in or not.
What a kid trying a coke for the very first time, look at that momentary wince they make and tell me it isn't brand driving customer acquisition and repeat sales for coke. In blind taste tests customers continue to prefer Pepsi over coke, but continue to buy coke anyway even though coke is 40% more expensive. That's the power of brand and all DTC getting to the point of an IPO have brand.
These businesses aren't trying to reinvent the wheel. They're selling existing products in well established market segments.
The biggest problems these DTC companies have are three fold;
1. The silicon valley mantra "move fast and break things" aka "disrupt the market". I'm sorry but not all markets can nor should be disrupted, and those that can, are only able to be disrupted so many times before it stops being a market and starts becoming this unstable thing no one wants a part of.
There are very good reasons some markets run the way they do. But more importantly taking an existing product and selling it online instead of through a brick and mortar store isn't disrupting anything.
2. California investors, particularly silicon valley investors. These people, their expectations and world view cause all manner of frankly idiotic business decisions and paralysis. To get somewhere you need capital, but to secure the capital you will often be asked to do unethical things.
3. The fickle, uninformed, narcissistic modern consumer who can't tell you what they had for breakfast let alone have any concept of actual reality. And their vapid desire to virtue signal, particularly with this pseudo-authencity thing they get a kick out of.
Also, while I'm here one commenter said he made $60K in 3 months and then another commenter up on a bs high horse asked what "value that brought to the market" as if that was actually how markets worked. The commenter made $60K, good on them they're playing the game how it's supposed to be played. It's no ones job to put actual value into the market, what matters is perceived value from the consumer which you have if you're making sales.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@biggy_fishy This is a really simple concept.
There is a virus. If you don't contact with other people, the virus has no way to spread. That suppresses the virus.
We have vaccines. Those vaccines create personal immunity. If enough people are vaccinated the already suppressed virus has nowhere in the community to grab on to and get a foothold allowing people to contact with each other again.
If every country in the world does that, we have eradication. Initial estimates for achievement goal before the variants started popping up where for completion in the second half of 2022.
But we have a problem, some countries are trying to take a shortcut. They're trying to build immunity through vaccination without suppression. Not only does that not work, but it provides a surface area for the virus to evolve.
We call those variants. Every new variant has a chance of being immune to the current vaccines, more infectious, more easily spread and more harmful.
This shortcut approach by some countries has given us several variants that are immune to our current vaccines. That caused funding for round two vaccines, with research starting in November 2020. Those are more rapid to produce because existing vaccines need only be altered a bit.
We now have some second generation vaccines that incorporate the new variants as well, but most countries are not deploying them yet. Instead most will deploy a second round in 2022 leading to a revised completion in 2023/24. That is where the official advice currently sits.
If non-, compliant countries stop trying to shortcut and activate proper suppression strategies, then 2023/24 is where we'll get things fully back to normal and CoVID-19 will be eradicated.
If they continue to be non-compliant and they develop new variants then we could be looking at additional years, prolonging this as far as a decade.
It's in everyone's best interests to suppress the virus properly, everywhere. What Germany does, what India does, what Brazil does, they effect the longevity of this for the entire world.
Falling to eradicate CoVID-19 is not an option.
14
-
14
-
14
-
When Yanis was Greek finance minister, Greece saw the worst economy it's had in a century.
Yanis is talking absolute nonsense. You don't increase your wealth by buying your own stock or printing money. Both of these things decrease wealth.
Why are the richest men benefiting from the pandemic? That's very simple, it's the same reason they're the richest men. They have positioned themselves into market segments that the masses rely on to survive, and have become the market leaders in those segments.
So when the masses are all sitting at home unable to do much, they turn to these richest companies, owned by the richest men, for their food, entertainment, and livelihoods.
There are always winners and losers, and capitalism is designed to be a rigged game where only a few can ever win on the backs of the many losers. A healthy economy asks not why are the rich able to make money, but how is economic mobility flowing.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@kanthe1774 No. This does not have anything to do with "humanity" and it's frankly an emotional grasp at straws you would claim otherwise. My mortgage is getting very expensive lately under inflation, is it inhumane if you call the police because I break in your house and tell you I'm going to live there for free now?
Abuse of the asylum system threatens the existence of the asylum system and the UDHR more broadly. Signatory countries across the OECD have been talking of leaving the conventions for years, with each year their considerations become more serious. It's a big enough threat that the UNGA have been in negotiations surrounding altering the UDHR to potentially remove article 14. That is far less than ideal, we need people in genuine need to have free travel for the purpose of seeking asylum.
Illegal economic migration is a crime, everywhere. The convention is actually explicit of this fact. It is not only a threat to the stability of host economies, but it is a type of colonialism.
People from undeveloped and developing countries are not crossing illegally into developed countries with skills. Those whom have desired skills come via legal channels. There is no market demand for unskilled and low skilled labour, so when such labour floods the market via illegal migration it dilutes the labour pool even further, driving down wages and conditions. It's why large corporations who have big percentages of their workforce in unskilled or low skilled labour love economic migration, it lowers their costs and gives them market dominance. It means employees get unlivable wages and no chance of ever changing that.
That has knock on effects throughout society. It increases taxpayer burden on welfare, creates homeless, which feeds into drug use. Then you get desperation driving crime.
Unregulated border crossings rob governments of their ability to plan infrastructure, so you get high inflation, housing crisis, higher crime, lower productivity which then leads to higher inflation and recession. Unregulated borders cause harm to millions, it is the inhumane thing to do.
Like I previously touched on it is also a form of colonialism. The weak of a source country can not make such journeys, they must remain. Only the strong, the best of the community can go. But those are the same people a undeveloped or developing country needs to develop. When they leave for developed countries they are stolen in a type of colonialism which prevents the source country from ever growing and developing, it keeps them down so they can never compete and remain under the control of the wealthy. This is another reason large corporations love illegal migration, it keeps the source countries which often have high resources in a state of chaos and thus they can be exploited.
Only the ultra wealthy benefit from illegal migration, no one else. Not the house countries, not the source countries, not the illegal economic migrants themselves.
When economic migration is regulated and secured, everyone wins. The host country gets more skilled labour that they need and higher productivity. The economic migrant gets a higher quality of living. The source country gets increased foreign aid to assist with their development. Wages increase under this scenario, because the market is kept in balance and tax revenues increase in parallel so governments can plan infrastructure and provide adequate services.
Keeping borders secured is for everyone's benefit except the ultra rich who hate it because it increases their costs.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The opening of this story is a lie. Australians didn't vote not to recognise aboriginals in the constitution, if that's all the referendum were about or the questions were separated Australians would have voted for recognition.
What Australians didn't vote for was ASTIC 2.0 but this time embedded in the constitution instead of just in legislation. Australians voted no to a question that hadn't even been properly defined and the PM who has resided over Australian living standards dropping by 10% during his term refusing to answer questions about the proposal.
Edit: It is utterly false and frankly racist, to talk about any ethnic group as if they are a monolith. As if they all think the same, want the same things, have the same political goals/ideologies and feel the same about outcomes. There were just as many indigenous Australians opposed to the voice as there were for it, and the overwhelming majority of those it claimed to be aimed at helping hadn't even been told about it. Across Arnhem Land, Northern Queensland and the Torres Strait aboriginal communities weren't being told about the voice even though that's who the Canberra mob claimed it was to help. When they were told about it by journalists seeking opinion, they didn't want it. The voice was the canberra mob trying to cement their power over all indigenous australians again. It wouldn't have helped anyone. Real inclusion is the only thing that will help and that means making the NT a state, including tewee country and all of Torres Strait in voting and redefining electoral boundaries in QLD, SA and WA to give aboriginal communities a real say over candidates instead of being swamped out by larger population centres. That drives more indigenous candidates into parliament where they can have a real voice and secure real outcomes. The way forward is through unity, not division. NZ could stand to learn that too.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@pancakes3250 Yes, you're getting it wrong.
Think of it like this, when too much cash is in the system it loses value. If you continue to pump cash into the system, it's value plummets.
Whilst not a realistic amount to borrow, for the sake of simplicity of explanation let's say you borrow 100 lira over 3 years at 12%.
At 16% annual inflation, that 100 lira has the buying power of 84 lira at the time of borrowing but you owe 143.08 lira.
Lots of people decide to get loans, to buy houses, cars, start businesses, etc. Because there is all this new money in the economy inflation goes up, making that 100 lira borrowed worth even less.
Because that 100 lira has less buying power, fewer people can afford to buy things at stores. At the same time that consumer demand is dropping, there's suddenly a bunch more competition from new businesses further reducing demand.
Meanwhile more cash is being injected into the system further reducing the buying power of that 100 lira and in turn pushing prices up. This loop continues, until either the market collapses or someone restricts cash flow. This is referred to as hyperinflation. Often the domestic currency is abandoned altogether in regular trade, in place of a stable foreign currency or a physical item with restricted supply and intrinsic value. In Lebanon right now they're using cooking oil.
Foreign investment is gone by this point.
So you have all these businesses, some new with these increasingly burdensome loans against them. Some pre-existing with or without loans. Fewer and fewer people can buy their wares or utilise their services, making it increasingly difficult to keep employees on and to meet their loan obligations.
So you start a recession economy with a large number of businesses failing and employees getting fired. That increases the number of loan defaults both in terms of business loans and personal loans for houses, cars and other items due to a lack of income.
If left unchecked, those defaults leave banks without cashflow of their own and unable to meet withdrawals. At that point the country either has to bail out the banks or you have total economic collapse. If the country bails out the banks, it can't do so in domestic currency because that's worthless, so it has to borrow on the international market at impossible interest rates leading to long term austerity measures.
Or in other words, by injecting cash you increase inflation, which increases CPI and thus destroys investments and eventually the country.
Trump was popularist, but he also understood enough about economics to genuinely improve things.
What Erdogan is doing is totally reckless with a predictable outcome. He's literally running the economy into the ground on purpose.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
@sole__doubt I strongly disagree with the notions that this is either a huge set of people, and that they are simply confusing personality and gender.
In yankville, the "trans" population represents just 0.5% of the general population. That's 1:200 people. Statistically, you have a higher risk of getting in a car accident today than you do, seeing a "trans" person.
The driving forces are not confusion about personality. That isn't really a factor here. Instead we see distinct cohorts amongst this group.
• You have the people with genuine gender dysphoria, a mental health symptom of a larger mentall illness &/or severe trauma. Ironically they have become the minority in this group.
• You have the people doing it for sxl gratification which include several distinct sub-cohorts.
• You have the people using "trans" as modern day so called "gay conversation therapy".
• You have the people using it as a means of corruption to bypass a system, law or other barrier, be that a criminal trying to get into a womens prison/get special treatment, a failed athlete trying to get into women's sport, or some other means of using the designation.
• You have the people (largely minors and young adults) who are doing it as a social media fad.
• You have the ideologues who do it in solidarity with their ideological base as an extreme means to fit in and be accepted.
• You have the parents (mostly mothers) unhappy with the sx of their child (usually male) and whom then see this as a means of getting the child they wanted. Postpartum sx selection if you will. They account for almost all of the "trans kids" under 10.
These are the key cohorts. As you can see with so many competiting and vastly different motivators this has become a complex issue that requires nuance. However, given the tiny proportion of society affected it isn't an issue that should effect societal change.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Revenge and outrage are not justice. They have nothing to do with justice.
These families want this as a type of revenge. They expect they would see shame, remorse, fear and pain on the faces of the convicted, and would be happy with inflicting such a thing on them. But not only is that not what they'd actually see, but it wouldn't change how the families feel.
They'll still be angry. They'll still be devastated. They'll still be withdrawn. They'll still be grieving and their loved one won't be coming back. I know this is unpopular to say, everyone likes to virtue signal but justice, real justice isn't actually about the victims. It's about the community as a whole and how to keep it safe, orderly and productive. Yes, victims have a part to play that's why we have victims statements that are taken into account. But the bar is set by the community, the offenders risk of reoffending, the diversity of people impacted, etc. Not the victim(s) specifically.
A sentence is a sentence. It doesn't matter where the convicted is when it's handed down. It's applied the same.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
No one hates genuine asylum claimants. People do not like illegal economic migrants whom abuse the asylum system en masse.
Those are very different groups of people. The latter group factually, by the numbers, make up the overwhelming bulk of asylum claims. That's what people don't like.
By the numbers, if only genuine asylum claimants came to the UK, the UK would have seen just 5850 people make unannounced irregular border crossings in 2022. That's a number the UK could easily absorb and process in a year.
Instead an additional 39000 economic migrants turned up, crossed the border without a visa to do so and made an asylum claim they knew they were not entitled to.
InB4 you say something silly, leave to stay is not the same as a successful asylum application with refugee status granted. If you look down further from the big figure you'll see it's break down where only 13% of those granted leave to stay are found to be genuine asylum claims. The bulk of the rest are granted leave to stay under a ECHR rule which requires countries to grant illegal economic migrants leave to stay if they can demonstrate they now have a connection to the community (how, job, friends, community work, kids in school, etc). It's a rule that is rampantly being exploited, mostly from south Asian countries like Pakistan and East European countries like Albania.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
This doesn't add up. Either significant information is being withheld or something js very wrong with this investigation.
The police contend that a family, husband, wife, child, live together with Oscar Sollis and WERE HOME during the alleged murder. However they contend the family only heard "a loud bang* coming from Oscar's room" and went to stay in a motel THE NEXT DAY based solely on what they say was just a single loud bang.
Cooke wasn't a small guy. How big is this little house that you can get a male Cooke's size from the front door to a bedroom without the other 3 occupants of the home seeing or hearing? How sound proof is Sollis' bedroom that you can murder someone the size of Cooke in there without more than a single loud bang?
Who flees their home THE NEXT DAY over a loud bang made from the room they've rented? Not right then and there? Let's go to sleep tonight and we'll get a motel tomorrow. Not even concerned enough to call police.
The sherif contends the last footage of Cooke alive is from a doorbell camera. He talks about the camera "shutting off" as if it's significant or an active thing someone did. But doorbell cameras time out after somewhere between 20-40 seconds by default.
The sherif is adamant no one answers the door in the time period of the doorbell camera footage (which is under a minute) as if it's evidence of suspicious behaviour. But the family are home at this point. There is no footage of who opens the door.
Let me say that again, there is no footage of who opens the door. Despite that the sherif is speculating without qualifying it as such, during a press conference no less, the manner in which the victim was brought into the home. "He was yanked inside". What is the sherif basing that on?
The sherif is talking about "trash bags" being taken out of the home and that a third party is seen helping remove the "trash bags". The implication here from the sherif is that the "trash bags" contain Cooke. But Cooke is found INSIDE the home.
The scenario we're being asked to believe here is that a family rent out a spare bedroom to a parolee with Oscar Sollis' wrap sheet, inside their home with them not even a granny flat out back. Apparently no concerns whatsoever for their safety. And they do so why?
Then despite being home at the time hear nothing during a murder of a random dude delivering food. Smell nothing in their home after the murder despite the smell a body starts to make within 4-6 hours post-mortem. Claim a "loud bang" prompts them to go to a motel 24 hours later but they aren't concerned enough to call police.
Give police the doorbell footage ONLY when police start asking questions, but fail to give police the footage from the rear camera for 3 more days, until what, the pressure ramps up?
This feels wrong. Tell us more about the family Sollis was renting from.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Without watching the video the answer to the title question "Are US police trained to handle mental health" is no.
They are open and explicit about that. They do not train on mental health. And before you chastise policr, nor do paramedics.
Edit: After watching the video, what they aren't telling you, what almost no one in the media is telling you, is that in the USA there's 17,500 different police forces.
In larger cities police are militarised because those cities have become warzones. Sending in some of these police officers is no different than sending in soldiers. They aren't equipped to handle anything but violent threats. If your survival as a cop counts on identifying threats, you're always going to be looking for the threat. And if you're always looking for threats pretty soon you'll see them everywhere, even where they're not.
What the USA really needs to be talking about is nationwide CULTURAL reform. That solves not only the crime, not only the problems with policing, not only the increasing rate of mental health problems, but drives hope and prosperity. That can't happen if people in the USA don't stop pointing fingers and start looking in the mirror at their own attitudes, their own behaviours.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
No one is ever FORCED to use violence. Violence is always a choice. We can talk about children not having the mental tools to make better choices but we can't remove all blame from them and act like they'd be angels if not for the situation.
If the lady growing the third eye at the front of the video wants to see what happens when you take remand off the table for young offenders, she need look only to Queensland Australia where youth crime is sky rocketing and youth offenders are back on the streets within 24 hours after killing a woman in her own home, or when they stalk and stab random men in the street.
Corrections officers are not social workers and it's unreasonable to expect them to be. Their job is to provide security, and they require the tools to facilitate that mission.
It sounds as though the union are asking for youth detention centres to be reformed from a prison model into an actual youth detention model. It sounds as though the union are calling for investment into on site teachers, social workers and other members of staff to create opportunities for these kids and provide adequate interventions. That's a position I share, and curiously one the advocate and the host both likewise seems to share despite berating the union official. They all seem in agreement but they just wanted a big bad, and the advocate is determined to not make the kids accountable for their actions.
But we aren't talking about 7 - 10 year olds. We aren't talking about cuddly little toddlers. We're talking about 16 - 18 year olds on the cusp of adulthood, with the physical capacity to do real, serious harm to adults. Means to mitigate violence, including as a last resort physical force or restraint need to be adopted for corrections officers to keep everyone safe. When juvenile 1 is in the middle of stabbing or assaulting juvenile 2, there is immediate cause for physical intervention.
But corrections officers also need to be supported by social workers, psychologists, teachers and other such members of staff whom can intervene in a more peaceful way where appropriate, such as if juvenile 1 & 2 are having a screaming match.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The debt crisis in yankville started in the 1990s, not 2008. 2008 wasn't a catalyst either, debt was already 14 trillion by 2007.
Bailing out banks, who btw hold all of your money and if they fail your money goes with them, didn't cause the debt crisis. 50 years of bipartisan mismanagement, waste and petty partisan bickering caused the debt crisis.
Over inflating the value of the dollar also isn't helping. Do you know at the height of the pandemic when the DOW JONES was down and the yankville economy was in the toilet, the value of the USD actually increased? And not just due to trade demand, the Whitehouse actively increased the value at a time where market forces left alone would have decreased it's value by as much as 30c. That also increases debt.
Interest rates aren't negative, least of all from the world bank where this credit is coming from. No one is paying yankville to hold their money, certainly not China who holds most of the yankville national debt. That's a fantasy.
All countries have some debt, and when managed well debt can be beneficial to a country. When debt gets too high or enables out of control spending though it becomes a problem.
The recent trillion dollar "infrastructure bill" that passed late last year, where only 1/4 of the funds are going to infrastructure projects and the rest are going to frivolous nonsense is an example of uncontrolled spending. It's injected inflation into the yankville economy which inflates debt and as the USD is a reserve currency it's injecting further inflation into the global economy. That global inflation in turn echos back into the yankville economy as price rises on imports, so there's a double dip effect on cost of living.
You want to fix the yankville economy, first you have to stop letting the parties create partisan divisions in voters. Voters have to demand they find common ground, provide adequate basic services and stop spending on pork barreling and things that enrich themselves. But you can only achieve that yankville if you stop fighting each other and start working together. The left are great at communication, the right are great at practical efforts, you need both working hand in hand to get anywhere. You can do it yankville, that's how you really MAGA.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
What a very silly take. Every developed nation on the planet, from China and Japan, to all of the EU, yankville and Australia all have aging populations.
When people are given options in life beyond just being caged baby factories, believe it or not, they very regularly choose to do other things and to have fewer children.
When the cost of housing is moving beyond the means of even the middle class, and living expenses rise, this likewise has a downward trend on population growth.
You talk about poorer times, but in those times people still had the stability of accommodation and basic necessities.
Then you have to understand that it's the post WW2 baby boomers which are aging into retirement. That is to say, they were born at a time of exceptionally high domestic population growth, far in excess of what is "normal". Yet it's those born during the following decades of "normal" population growth which are now of working age. So there were simply more boomers to start with and boomers didn't tend to replace themselves.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Psychosis
Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.
There absolutely is a medical definition for psychosis. What's more, we understand the associated neurochemistry.
Psychosis is a syndrome associated with dysregulation of the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, and abnormal functioning of key brain circuits, particularly involving frontal, temporal, and mesostriatal brain regions.[1] People with psychosis typically experience hallucinations (e.g., auditory, visual, tactile), delusions, and disorganised thoughts and actions.
To suggest psychosis is somehow a made up condition is patently false.
5:09 "I'm a professor, I kind of know what I'm talking about "
This is a logical fallacy, a call to authority. The kind of fallacy no real academic, let alone academic professor would make when talking inside their field.
That's before we even get to the fact he's a "professor" of a non-academic, made up course HE PERSONALLY forced his employer to create, and which does not allow any kind of open scientific rigour.
There are many more parts of this interview I could pull apart as nonsensical, particularly how he incoherently jumps between countries and cultures as if thet can be thought of collectively and an assortment of other fallacies, but for the sake of brevity I just want to quickly touch on one other horrendous comment made which stands out.
3:58 "In one of the stories I tell, to highlight the absurdity in the book, is that they want to address knife crime, and so they decide to target knife free images on fried chicken boxes across the country. As though black people have some inherent link to knife crime"
According to this statement, all black people eat fried chicken and only black people eat such food. Whilst making this racial stereotype he appears utterly deaf to the realities that fried chicken appears for centuries in every culture around the world, but southern fried chicken is of SCOTTISH origins, and the the restaurants he's talking about are white owned. That is, everyone, from every race, including whites eat fried chicken. It seems to have never crossed his mind that people from a particular socio-economic background which is directly associated with knife crime are more likely to frequent particular establishments. The man for whom everything is racial, continues to conclude it's the colour of ones skin and not the amount of money in ones pocket. A similar point to when he talks about neighbourhoods, where it's actually economic class that causes people to flee not the colour of ones skin.
Perhaps he should seek to look outside himself, spend more time with a diversity of people, stop conflating cultures and reflect critically upon his own beliefs, ideas and basis.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
OPs comment and many of the other comments in this thread are yet again another reminder of why we should all be glad mob justice is illegal. Ironically the faulty group think that is suggesting the incarceration should have been longer, is the same kind of group think that turned a blind eye to all of the violations at the plant which arguably caused this accident.
All opinions are not equal, particularly where an opinion is based upon a lack of, or faulty knowledge.
First and foremost what almost all commenters in this thread seem to misunderstand is that the criminal justice system is not a punitive system, it is intended to be reformative in nature. That is, the point of being sent to prison isn't punishment, the point is to place the offender in a position whereby they can become a productive law abiding member of society. Justice is not revenge, and vice versa.
Sentencing is not a menu with predetermined prices that are just added up. There is no such thing as (X) = (Y) in sentencing, the suggestion by one commenter that involuntary manslaughter is 10 years is false. Sentencing is flexible, the criminal code lists maximum penalties, and occasionally minimums, but the actual sentence is at the discretion of the magistrate/judge/panel. If you are charged with 7 counts of X offence your sentencing isn't sentencing for 1 count times 7, it's sentencing for all counts concurrent. So if the minimum sentencing for an offence is 5 years prison and you're charged with 7 counts the minimum sentence doesn't become 35 years it remains as 5 years. You can't undo what is done with sentencing.
Law takes intent into account during sentencing . If you commit murder but you can establish both self defence and proportionate force you likely won't suffer any legal consequences.
Similarly if this fire had just been a fire without any fire code violations it's unlikely the owner would have been arrested at all. It's because he acted with negligence in obstructing fire exits that he was sentenced to 19 years with parole eligibility after 4 years and additional plea conditions.
Anyone suggesting that losing 4 years of your life then being held under parole conditions for the remaining 15 years is an inconsequential slap on the wrist is out of touch with reality. Think back over the last 4 years of your life, what would you have missed? Furthermore he isn't just coming out of prison and resuming where it left off. He lost everything, had a criminal record which limited his ability to get a job or run a business and is infamous even now 40 years on.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
It is dishonest to frame this as something new. Between 1995 and 2021 DWP relative poverty figures for children in working households fluctuate between 60% and 71%.
Those numbers increasing during a period of high inflation should only be a surprise to those who do not understand inflation. It is the devaluation of currency, that is a pound is worth less today than it was worth yesterday and that results in reduced buying power. If you had £100 in the bank yesterday and today that £100 is only worth £91.50 you've lost £8.50 you can never get back no matter what you do. When tomorrow that £91.50 is worth £84 you start to see the problem.
There is very little in economics more insidious than high inflation, it stills your wealth from right in your pocket and it doesn't discriminate on socioeconomic class. Inflation makes EVERYONE poorer. So if you're already on the edge of poverty before high inflation, it plunges you in.
That's why you get a jump in these figures. It's also why government and the bank of England are doing everything in their power to stamp out inflation as quickly as possible.
That includes refusing to lament to the demands of unions. Raising wages makes that problem worse. It devalues currency at a faster rate and increases consumer prices. A double whammy that effects everyone not just those whom got a wage rise.
You are being dishonest too when you talk about non-whites being more likely to be in poverty. You need to break those figures down further to show a truthful picture. What you're really talking about is low and no skill migrants whom have come ob asylum claims, some of whom have received refugee status. You're also talking about imported low and no skill labour by specific sectors, such as privately run social care. These groups are paid below minimum wage, and they further drive down wages across the economy.
If you want to fix wages in low and no skill sectors, you need to cut off the tap for international supply of low and no skill labour. That means ending the practice of international recruitment from developing countries (particularly SEA) for low and no skilled labour, and preventing illegal border crossings by economic migrants. It also means keeping a better eye on genuine refugees such that they are sent home as soon as the war or persecution in their home country is over.
Schools need to be funded properly. Maths does need to be compulsory throughout K-12. So does English. The curriculum needs to be reviewed and fixed, and the university system needs to be overhauled so it isn't just profit driven business trying to fleece international students.
Business needs to be consulted in education reforms to ensure the education is pumping out the workforce needed. That afterall is it's job.
Teaching staff need to be retrained to actually be engaging, to fix student retention in high school. The stats don't lie, children in working poor families tend to be the children of high school dropouts. Those children are then 4x more likely to have behavioural problems and drop out of school too making it a multigenerational problem. More needs to be done to keep those kids at risk in school and encourage them into tertiary training so they have a higher earning future then their parents before them.
There's more variables at play here, but ultimately this comes down to inadequate investment in productivity (not growth), infrastructure, education and border control over the last 50 years. Governments can't spend revenues they do not have however, which means the constant tax cuts over the last 25 years need to be wound back to fix the budget deficit.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@megiab You're living in a fantasy world. Insurance does not work that way. Honestly, what some people seem to think insurance is has no bearing on reality whatsoever. No one wants people to be killed, but I can guarantee I can walk into your home right now and point out many things that could potentially cause a death.
You don't notice or fix them for the exact same reason business does not, you do a quick cost: benefit analysis weighting risk. Only you do it automatically and simply in your head where business will be a bit more elaborate and write down all their working to cover themselves legally.
The risk of fire is low. The risk of theft is high. Guess which one wins out.
This is an entertainment channel, it DOES NOT present factual accounts of events. Many of the things stated in any video on this channel are simply untrue. They either never happened at all, or happened in a different way than presented. It's crazy that so many people take the things presented here as fact without so much as checking anything said or even having a legitimate reason to believe what's said here. It's like watching one of those spooky narration channels with the obvious fiction and thinking it's real.
This channel basis videos on real events but does not present them faithfully or accurately. Look up this event from genuinely credible sources, newspapers at the time, police reports, historical accounts, actually credible researchers and you'll soon find the mountain of inconsistency with the telling from this channel. It happens every video, but that doesn't make them any less fun to listen too. Particularly when presented by a relaxing monotone voice.
What completely boggles the mind is the disregarding of the fact this was an act of arson by you and those like you. It wasn't an accidental fire. It wasn't the result of poor maintenance. It didn't occur because the hotel was negligent.
It's a fire started ON PURPOSE by 3 disgruntled employees with the full intent to cause damage and destruction to the hotel. The 3 employees collectively knew the doors were locked, the state of the fire prevention and alarm systems and the location of guests. They chose to light a fire in a concealed location as close to guests as possible, that limited escape and had the highest possibility for loss of life.
That is why they went to prison for murder. Not for involuntary manslaughter. Not for GBH. Not for damage to property. For murder. That means prosecutors were able to convince a jury with more common sense than you that these three set out to willingly cause death.
"BuT wHaT aBoUt ThE cOrPoRaTiOnS" 🤦 Jackass
7
-
7
-
@charzemc 🤦 No mate, it's not.
You appear to be thinking of SARS-COV, AKA SARS. They are both coronaviruses. A coronavirus is a groups of viruses that cause respiratory infections, classified in the family Coronaviridae. These include MERS, SARS, CoVID-19, OC43, HKU1 & NL63.
Influenza is a different group of viruses, classified in the family Orthomyxoviridae. There are three main types of influenza in humans A, B & C. There are many different strains and variants of influenza across the types, none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the coronaviruses. There are different subgroups* of influenza for different common animals including horses, birds, pigs and apes.
Coronaviruses and Influenza are very, very different from each other. It's like saying an elephant, a cockroach and you are all the same thing because they've all animals.
Bird flu, officially avian influenza, is a type A influenza with different strains all infecting birds. The one in circulation currently is H5N1. Again, it has literally nothing whatsoever to do with CoVID-19.
I've used a lot of different classifications in this comment and it's clear that you're confused and misunderstanding in the outset. So I would encourage you to web search each of the classifications I've referenced and learn about them from credible medical pages so that you understand the differences going forward.
Edit: Fixed typo
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@alpha-omega2362 So let's see, you scream that I'm wrong but are unable to state what you believe is wrong in my comment or why. Let's go through it bit by bit.
The overwhelming majority of his predictions were indeed false. That's objectively true and demonstrated by the fact the majority of his predictions indeed did not happen at all, least of all within the timescale he gives (by the year 2000).
Some of his predictions were indeed completely out of touch with reality. This also is objectively true, demonstrated by the fact they're based on fundamental misunderstandings of how those things work physically/biologically. Predictions like the idea whole cities would be knocked down and rebuilt or ape servants were obviously bunk from the get go. He can't even distinguish the difference between an ape and a monkey, nor does he appear to understand which group a chimpanzee (our direct relative) belongs to.
The two things that could at all be considered true were indeed exceptionally broadly worded, and were indeed true when he said them to the degree of the broadness he used. For example he directly references transistors, satellites, broadcast cameras and remote work. In 1964, satellite television, mobile phones and video phones were all in their commercial infancy. They existed. Indeed it is likely he knew they existed and was directly referencing them. Perhaps even more than likely given his description is exactly how two of them would be marketed just a few years later.
This program was recorded, that's how it was broadcast in 1964, and it's the sole reason we're able to see it today. 16mm home movies have existed since 1924. 8mm was popular in 1964, and it wasn't uncommon for middle class families to own a video camera to take home movies. That is to say the concept of recording video for future generations to view wasn't new to Clarke in 1964. It would have been an obvious expectation that people in 2000 would be able to view the recording. I mean crikey, we have video recordings from 1820 and beyond right here on YouTube. It's absurd to suggest Clarke wouldn't know future generations would be able to view the recording of this TV program.
Modern humans have always understood the past, and their relationship to it. That's the entire point of historical record, be it through dance, oral tradition, story, art or written history.
It would seem in review of my comment that my statements are indeed accurate.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Umm, what?
Singing, dancing and speaking loudly in and of themselves DO NOT spread CoVID-19, what an absolutely anti-intellectual, pseudoscientific thing to say.
Gladys is emotionally driven, she doesn't make her decisions based on medical evidence.
Greater Sydney currently has multiple clusters underway and sporadic isolated cases. Of course Sydney's new year's eve celebrations shouldn't be going ahead. The last thing Sydney needs is a bunch of people close to one another.
But that has nothing to do with singing, dancing or speaking loudly. Even if I'm yelling as loud as possible, the evidence is that CoVID-19 can not be flung a distance greater than 1m. That's why we have the 1.5m rule.
The ONLY exception is if the person is subject to deep spasmatic coughing, such as that brought on whilst testing for CoVID-19, whereby that deep lung coughing can project the virus up to 5m.
Small, at home get togethers with groups of 10 or fewer, pose little risk even if they sing, dance or ... Speak loudly. That's what should be announced. Public events cancelled, up to 10 people in a home max, restrictions on travel outside of neighbouring suburbs.
7
-
@0warfighter0 Please observe that at no stage did I state anything about promotion, nor did I make any comments that indicate fear or anti-gay perspective. Please stop trying to turn this conversation into something it's not, and please do not place words in my mouth. You only discredit yourself by doing either.
I am only concerned with the law being reported on and legitimate concerns of impact it may have. No one has thus far been able to point to any legitimate negative outcomes from such a law. I have looked through the statute and it doesn't appear to have anything in it that could possibly cause harm.
It doesn't outlaw homosexuality nor does it outlaw people talking about homosexuality in their own private conversations. It doesn't outlaw adults being part of societies, groups or non-profits surrounding homosexual rights or lifestyle. This particular law does not make illegal, establishments geared towards a homosexual clientele. It doesn't outlaw homosexual content at universities where all students are adults.
Importantly, it also does not introduce content into schools with a negative view of homosexuality.
The only thing this law does is outlaw homosexual content at schools in relation to minors. That is, it leaves sexuality completely out of schools for minors making that a question for parents. As such, I can see no negative outcomes here for homosexuals. Homosexual students in schools will still be homosexual, they'll still have the same number of friends as they had yesterday and those friends will naturally come to understand them as individuals.
Critically there is no discernible mechanism by which such a position alone can increase stigma, hatred nor lead to oppression.
So, unless someone can point to a direct harm I'm going to take this as a media beat up of a non-issue.
If this is how Hungary feel from a social and cultural standpoint then it seems a reasonable implementation.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@leegilley221 Close. France generates ~70% of it's electricity from nuclear energy. The caveat here of course is that many of these plants are due for decommission and are having their life extended well beyond where it should be. This increases the risk of an accident. I did briefly mention that France uses nuclear in an earlier comment.
The focus should not, correction,can not be on the source of energy generation in any particular country. Each countries energy infrastructure and needs are different. The emphasis instead needs to be on ensuring as much on shore generation independent of imports exists in the grid as possible. This can take many forms, nuclear fission being just one, but solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, natural gas, coal, etc. It really depends on the resources at hand in a given country and how they can be exploited best. For the UK wind and tidal make the most sense, and these projects needed to be deployed at much grander scales before the coal power stations were switched off.
But it's useless talking about electricity generation when heating in people's homes relies on gas boilers. The UK could produce 20x the necessary electricity supply but if people need gas to heat their homes the reliance on the international market for gas imports remains. A priority has to be made of switching people over to electric heating solutions. Increasing domestic generation of electricity must go hand in hand with electrification of heating.
The electrification of heating in France is in reality their smartest move. It means they aren't reliant on gas to heat homes, so they can leverage the domestic grid for the need. That gives France much more power over the price in their domestic market.
The problems in the UK are systemic in nature, and came about across bipartisan governments. It isn't a new problem, it's only that now the conditions are ripe to see the problem more clearly.
It's going to take the UK 10-20 years to fix the issues, so best start that process now. In the mean time, removing sanctions on Russia will provide some relief in the domestic market, much more relief if the UK can convince the EU to do the same.
Delaying the climate goals by another 10-20 years would also grant significant domestic price relief.
It's total mismanagement from all sides of politics, that's the problem.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Isn't it funny that channel 4 think this is in any way new for South Africa or, anywhere in Africa for that matter...
Funnier still that when it's whites with this behaviour against any race, even other whites, channel 4 call it racism. But here they call it xenophobia. Of course neither label are true, it's just an attempt to cast such people as outliers when it's really how the majority feel. It isn't just hard economic times, hard economic times just make people drop the pretence of socially acceptable tolerance masking their true feelings.
Whether it's South Africa, Kenya, Argentina, Texas, Poland, or the UK, the people all say the same things. They're worried about IRREGULAR or UNCONTROLLED border crossings (which they call illegal), increase in crime, undercutting of local merchants and a dilution or evaporation of existing culture. They say those things independent of their own skin colour or that of the migrants. Their worries only increase the poorer the source country and the more different their culture. Not because they're foreign or because they're afraid of their cultures, the same people welcome legal immigration.
It's about having control over ones borders, knowing people let in aren't a safety risk, that people let in will provide a greater benefit to the community than they receive in return and will assimilate into the existing culture.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5:10 "In a statistically insignificant poll we attempted to rig for this program just over HALF of midwives said their biggest problem the job was pay.... 87% said they were upset because their friends we leaving, which was a separate response to resources."
Here CH4 are reporting that midwives aren't up to scratch, that their inadequate training and processes are costing lives. That instead of tackling those issues it's been swept under the rug and wards given a weird consumer rating system on competency that isn't transparent nor fit for purpose. Probably purposefully so.
You're reporting this, rightly so, but then you ruin it by trying to turn this into a funding issue and rattling off union talking points. This report started out so well, exposing the actual incompetency and poor training of staff inside the NHS. Exposing the fatal negligence of processes and staff. The stuff of real, actual public interest. The stuff that genuinely needs to be made a big deal about.
But then you paste over it with utter nonsense to distract from the issues just raised in an attempt to what, appease the union? Utterly flabbergasted, you can't make this stuff up.
There's are reason Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Yankville are all looking at placing UK trained doctors, nurses and midwives on the same list as the same from India or Cuba. In desperation to fill position vacancies the UK dropped both their selection criteria and the quality of training. The criteria for previous training of immigrant doctors to register has also been lowered. Combined, these things are resulting in a fatal NHS.
You don't get Lucy Letbys anywhere near a hospital when you have a robust training suitability selection process. Sunak has taken the first step to solving the problem by bringing high school education into the 20th century (not into the 21st century yet, still lagging behind). But that's going to take a decade to see those graduates come through.
What the government really needs to do is lay the ground work by lifting selection criteria for medicine and healthcare courses back up to where it is supposed to be, and supplementing training of those already working inside the NHS to ensure everyone has the skills to successfully operate inside their roles. There need to be robust and fully transparent reporting processes put in place to gauge how that training is coming along, and lines in the sand where failure to perform adequately or score high enough in supplemental training leads to dismissal. I sympathise with workers but this is patient lives and safety we're talking about.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yeah, I couldn't keep watching that interview. That thing was creepy af.
Facebook isn't just doing a rebrand, they're creating a new holding company for their assets in the same way Google did with Alphabet.
By having a holding company in this manner, than have a better argument against charges of monopoly and antitrust, as well as an argument to avoid being broken up.
If Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and this new VR tool are all owned by Facebook then stand a good chance of being broken up because there isn't much of a defence.
If they are all separate companies owned by a single holding company, then they can argue that Facebook and Instagram compete with each other and aren't engaged in a monopoly. Unilever, Nestle, Kellogg's and PepsiCo have been successfully using that argument for decades. It's how they can own entire product segments, cut out all competition and have no consequence.
Meta isn't a PR exercise, it's a structural legal defence.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This isn't accurate.
If you are an Australian citizen AND LIVE IN A STATE or live abroad you have a right to vote fairly in all elections. If you live in a territory, such as the Northern Territory, ACT, Christmas Island, the teewee Islands, etc there are no local or state governments to vote for, and you don't get to vote for house of reps. If you're one of the islanders you don't get to vote for federal senate either.
Territories are the property of the crown, not the people and come under federal jurisdiction with discretion of the governor general.. The federal government decide what they can and cannot do. They provide the funding and benefit directly from any economic outputs such as mining royalties. Not the people living there.
Territories have administrative assemblies with territory elected members. They seem like an analogue to a state government but they aren't because they have no real powers. They're more like an advisory body that advise the federal government on how they think the territory should be run.
People living in these territories actually have very little say over their lives, and over how the benefits of their GST and mining royalties might be spent. Most of that money gets redistributed by the federal government into Sydney and Melbourne.
It should therefore be of no surprise to anyone that the places where the gap is most predominant, where poverty and crime is highest, where things are least working is inside these territories.
We had the wrong referendum. The referendum should have been for statehood for the NT.
6
-
@Chuck-yt7iq All of my numbers come from the WHO. The WHO does NOT state 2 million deaths for SARS-COV-2. Here are the exact words from the WHO CoVID-19 dashboard
"Globally, as of 6:08pm CEST, 12 October 2021, there have been 237,655,302 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 4,846,981 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 9 October 2021, a total of 6,364,021,792 vaccine doses have been administered."
I would have linked to it if YouTube allowed external links. It does not, but it's a very easy site to find in search.
The only number with an estimate is CVDs which is because it includes so many different diseases and is difficult to keep track of all of them globally. Particularly where morality is complex. Therefore the WHO estimates the deaths.
All other numbers are confirmed. They do not include numbers from South America and parts of Africa because numbers can't be assessed accurately from those regions. If included they would life the numbers far higher.
8.8% of global deaths are due to confirmed cases of SARS-COV-2. Stop spreading misinformation. Without measures such as social distancing, masks and mandatory isolation we would be talking about a far worse situation easily within the 60-100M deaths range.
I have been in medicine for 17 years, have epidemiology training and have been providing government advice throughout. You are out of your depth here mate.
Stfu, get vaccinated and wear a mask or stay at home. This isn't a debate.
Edit: Your second comment is again filled with factual errors and false numbers.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The King is not just "a rich person", nor is he simply a head of state. It isn't comparable directly to a presidsnt, he has more power in his fingernail cuttings than a yankvillian president ever will. The King is sovereign. That means there is no distinction between the King and the unified country of Britain. They're the same thing and are treated as such. The King can do anything he wants, and everything in the commonwealth belongs to him, including you and every cent you generate. All the land is his, even the land you think is yours. Every doctor in Britain is his doctor. He is not accountable to anyone but himself, not parliament, not his friends, not the people. No one. That's how a dictatorship, cough, I mean the monarchy works. It's his country, he just lets you live in it and work for him.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Can't blame the council for this, they have finite resources and demand beyond what those resources can accommodate.
This is what happens when you allow the private rental model to change from a long term investment where the landlord gets an asset at the end, and eventually after everything is paid off makes an income on rent, to one where landlords use rent as the asset and their day to day income. Being a landlord is NOT a job, you are not a "businessman" because you own property and extort the vulnerable.
Rent is not intended to generate profit for a landlord from the purchase of a property. It's not even intended to cover the whole of a mortgage payment.
There need to be greater safeguards in place in addition to scrapping section 12 evictions. Things like how frequently rent can go up, and the percentage increase that it can go up by. The latter needs to be linked to the property not the tenant and apply regardless of whether a tenant is in a property or not.
Yes, that would pull many of the people who are using the wrong business model out of the landlord market. But, those properties do not disappear. They go up for sale, where another landlord, council or an owner occupier can buy them. So the net property supply remains more or less the same. The incentive to be a landlord remains as it always has, you get a subsidised asset.
Supply obviously needs to be increased but realistically that isn't going to be delivered in any meaningful way for 5-10 years. It takes time to build liveable homes. Supply alone is not the answer, you don't solve these fundamental problems in the system of rental housing changing from long term investment to a short term business model with supply. Fixing that now will ease the rental crisis now and ensure it's a robust system into the future.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Woah. Cross the criminal threshold? Unless speech is slanderous, defaming, or directly results in risk to physical personal safety (ie. shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and where that leads to a stampede, or directly commanding others to cause an individual or individuals physical harm be it through violence or use of force to prevent avoidance of physical harm) then no speech, none, should be criminal. Whilst it isn't something I would do, if someone wants to shout racial abuse at you, that should be entirely their prerogative no matter how much it hurts your feelings. You should have the right to shout whatever you like to them in return, completely ignore them and continue unabated or to leave, whichever you please. If they are on your property you have the right to tell them to leave.
Similar if someone wants to insult a religious text, draw cartoons, discuss history, or burn scripture that too should be their unequivocal right. Absolute freedom of speech is what resulted in the British empire, and the success of its colonies. It's what made them strong, united places because it gave society the opportunity to work through its differences as painful as that may have been and to find new perspectives. To find common ground under one banner.
The concept of free speech and free expression is such that it exists to protect the forms of expression that are not easy or pleasant to hear. That's its purpose. Speech is never violence, so it should NEVER rise to a level of criminality because speech no matter what kind should never be a crime. Defamation, liable and slander are all civil matters, not crimes.
There is no way to criminalise free expression without eroding free expression what on earth are you talking about. Stop pretending to be something you aren't. You aren't advocating for free speech. The things you have said in this video are absurd. It's thinned skinned people saying stuff like you just did that has caused the UK to descend so low on the freedom index. Get it together mate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
People in this thread seem to be getting emotional with knee jerk reactions to a very narrow video about very broad policy. So let's clear some things up.
Laws are created to be broad & practical, to cover as many situations as possible. When they created the tax break laws in question, they weren't thinking about this very narrow outcome that this video is discussing. They were thinking about drawing in wealthy people to the city whom would then pay other taxes and fund the city.
What this video is talking about are *LOOP HOLES*. By definition a loop hole is an unintended use or exploitation. Ie. The law was designed for something else but a few companies are exploiting poor wording in legislation to achieve things the law didn't intend.
Next, a lower percentage does not necessarily mean someone is paying less. Let's do some primary school mathematics
If person A earns $50K a year and pays 50% in tax person A will be paying $25K in tax.
If person B earns $5M a year and pays just 1% in tax person B would still be paying twice the amount of tax of person A or $50K.
The reality of this means that a single wealthy resident is paying significantly more tax than an entire building floor of low-middle income earners. Or in other words the rich are paying for services, government programs, emergency services and infrastructure for those less well off, and are subsidising the incomes of the poor through social housing programs and unemployment benefits.
The problem in the case of billionaires row is the economic benefits such developments are supposed to bring aren't being realised because the owners don't live in the building and they aren't renting the property out. That is a significant problem, however not one best solved by throwing out tax law.
Absolutely adjustments to close loop holes should be made, but the laws themselves are built on sound principles. Instead, NYC needs to ask itself what are the liveability factors that cause someone to buy a home in NYC but never use it. Not on weekends. Not as a once a year holiday. Never.
Next, it is not that wealthy people have so much money they don't know what to do with it. A billionaire doesn't have billions of dollars sitting in their bank account, that would be dumb. These people are so wealthy because they understand how the system works, and the money system works in a way where money should always be helping you make more of it.
So they take that money and put it into investments, and they diversify those investments as much as possible in order to cover losses any one investment type might make.
So if you invest money in stocks and loose $100M then you don't have to worry as much because the investment you made in a new technology R&D, or a start up company, or art, or real estate just made you $150M, so you've covered your losses and still made a profit.
This is where liquidity comes in. The more liquid an asset is, the easier it's converted into cash. Therefore the easier it makes profit and the more flexibility to changing direction quickly you have. There's no use dumping $500M into property if you can't quickly convert it into cash if the housing market starts to slump, you find a better investment elsewhere or indeed you need to raise capital for some reason.
And that's what this video is suggesting the purpose of these thin skyscrapers is. To serve as a high liquidity investment that will appreciate in value but allow a quick return to cash if necessary for some reason.
And lastly to Z the Cat, there are no economic models in current existence which when applied at real world scale do not result in a large selection of poverty. Not communism, not socialism, not tribal economics, not barter and certainly not capitalism. All current economic systems function by giving small amounts to a large portion of low end workers, and large amounts to the elites. The difference is, in mixed socialist - capitalism systems economic mobility tends to be high which allows anyone to become wealthy or to stop being wealthy very rapidly if they make the right moves and regardless of where they start. Where as in pure capitalist systems economic mobility is lower and it's almost non-existent in communist systems where you get rewarded based on how you please elites rather than the independent fruits of your individual efforts. Like it or not, capitalism even with all of it's flaws, is the best economic system we currently have on offer. With that said, if we're going to survive as a species beyond 2050 we need to invent a new system that incentivises depopulation and population stability, rather than the exponential population growth capitalism incentivises
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
1:57 Stop lying. Actually look at historic temperature data instead of relying on little old ladies.
Sevilla had 15 days of 40°c or higher in July 2010, 2 days in July 2012, 1 day in July 2013, 6 days inJuly 2015, 3 days in July 2016, 2 days in July 2017, 2 days in July 2019, 4 days in July 2020, 2 days in July 2021, 17 days in July 2022 and drumroll please... Just 6 days in July 2023.
Only the years 2011, 2014 and 2018 had no days of 40°C or higher. However all of those years had at least 6 days of 39°c.
If you plot the temperatures over the years you see a pattern. One should expect no days of 40°c or higher in 2024. Every year, including 2023, had at least one July day where the temperature did not even reach 30°C.
This is why trying to connect this kind of reporting to climate change is so detrimental to getting people on board and filled with misinformation. It isn't based in reality. Instead to show the reality of climate change for Sevilla you would instead need to show only a series of historic temperature datasets for July high temps. If you plot hit temps for July over the last 40 years you can see an upward trend of 3.6°C for Sevilla.
It's not actually all that interesting to listen to, but that's actual climate change. That's actually what should be being reported. What you're currently reporting, that's BS.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Listening to Yanis speak in this interview ,it's easy to see why the Greek economy became more indebted, and more austere. 😂
Communist techno babble more like it. His entire understanding of these systems is fundamentally wrong. When challenged his crumbles and just starts rambling empty, meaningless words in order to side step the challenge and pretend his argument didn't just fall apart. It's an echo chamber argument, it doesn't hold up to even cursory scrunity.
So let's correct the record.
He picked a lot of Amazon so we'll start there. Amazon is not one thing, it has it's fingers in many industries and I think most people would be surprised to learn that Amazon's market place loses money, it doesn't make it.
The market is just that, a market. Unles Yanis is suggesting that open air markets, high streets and shopping centres are a kind of feudalism, then his argument about Amazon market place is empty. Millions of independent businesses from all over the world participate selling their wares directly on Amazon market place. Then, Amazon themselves sell products some of which they actually do manufacturer (amazon basics, the original ebook brand kindle, alexa and their fire range of products and ring for example) despite Yanis claim otherwise.
But amazon also do many other things. They're an ISP, they're a movie studio, they're a integrated digital broadcast company, they're a music label, they're a telephony provider, they're a music streaming platform, they're a security company, they're a cyber security company, they're IMDb, they're a smart device manufacturer, they're a retailer, they're a digital shopping centre, they're twitch, they're an app developer, they're a physical groceries store, they're a communications utility, they're a AAA game developer, they're a social network, they're a robotics company, they're an aerospace giant, they're a military contractor, they're many, many other things and they're a cloud compute company.
In actuality amazon make very many products, some consumer facing, some B2B, some government facing. They are the epitome of unregulated capitalism naturally leading towards monopolies. The closest prpduct Amazon have to Yanis' "techno feudalism" is AWS. Cloud compute, where they lease storage, cpu time, etc to whoever wants to utilise it. Where it breaks down however is, not only are their millions of companies doing the same, but no one is required to utilise cloud compute. Many businesses keep these systems in house either in part or in full, and most consumers only touch with cloud compute will be through OneDrive, iCloud &/or Google Drive.
Taking my phone with me in the car, is not work. It does not magically transform into work just because I have Google or Apple Maps installed. Yes, my phone, through whatever maps app communicates location data back to the servers of whichever vendor I'm using for navigation. That's the nature of navigation. On the SERVER SIDE they take the telemotry data they're necessarily gathering anyway to facilitate the navigation service and making inferences about things like delays and best routing. That's not work you are doing. That's information you've giving up about yourself, so they can do work in exchange for access to products and services without monetary charges.
Data broking is not feudalism. You are not a freaking serf. Data broking is authorised surveillance for prpfit, something much more sinister.
X, social networks, forums, video hosting platforms, these are not digital land being leased. You aren't doing work. These are very diverse communications and entertainment platforms, that leverage data broking. You aren't performing work when you post on Facebook or comment on YouTube, anymore than you're doing work when you make a phone call or talk to your friends in the street. The difference is, you've given authorisation for businesses to spy on you and then sell the information they gather.
It's the most capitalism, capitalism can be. Everything is for sale, even your personal information. Western economies are now driven so much by consumerism that the leading prodit machine is now advertising. That's really what data broking is all about.
No, you can not opt out. Deleting social media and buying a dumb phone won't opt you out. Every digital sign run by an ad network has a series of cameras installed and sophisticated facial recognition software that identifies you, logs and stores your face then tracks how often you walk passed, what time of day, what days of the week, what you're looking at and for how long, whether you're looking at the sign and for how long, etc etc. Every supermarket and large chain bricks and mortar retailer has a camera network throughout their store doing the same. Some retailers have hidden cameras in their shelving. At those brick and mortar retailers "techno feudalists"? 😂
The irony of Yanis' comments about VW and the cloud, is that VW have a larger cloud network collecting more invasive data about their customers than Tesla would even dream of. Every major automaker in the world has been collecting copous amounts of customer data since ~2013. For a full list of the information collected you can read the recent EFF report on the subject, but briefly the information includes mundane things like where you go, what stations you listen to, through to actually quite scary things like your GENETIC INFORMATION, how much you weigh, your face. If you have your cars app on your phone, also every photo and video you ever take, details of your sex life, and more. The EFF report is a sobering read. To suggest that there is no big tech outside of Yankville and China is completely and utterly ignorant of reality.
We don't live in a feudalist state. We live in a dystopian late stage capitalist society. The economy is flat because productivity is in the toilet. Millennials and zoomers have failed to buy into the idea of giving 110% to make someone else wealthy that previous generations have. They were brought up thinking they're someone special, so they think they have some kind of right to be as rich and powerful as Bezos without any effort on their part. Thus, no productivity.
Privacy ended in the 90s. Free speech is on the way out now. That's really why people feel frustrated and hopeless. It isn't because they're serfs, it's because they're losing all of their hard won freedoms without recourse. We're in a period where all the principles of egalitarianism, enlightenment and the labour movement are being wound back to increase consumerism and maximise profit.
The answer is not communism. The answer is not a dysfunctional, unproductive company where you have to set up a freaking committee every time you want ro hire someone new. And it's certainly not a tedious system where when I want to get a taxi somewhere I'm robbed of the freedom of choice by an algorithm sending my request for a car out to tendor and awarding it to the lowest bidder.
These half baked ideas of Yanis aren't just poorly considered, they would drive great harm and misery if implemented. Consider Yanis' taxi idea for example. Firstly, ride share is not a taxi service the industry has gone to great lengths to try to foster that idea. There are still plenty of genuine taxi services around. This tendor idea of yanis' isn't merely just an inconvenience of waiting while a bidding process takes place. It doesn't just rob the consumer of the right to choose. It quite disgustingly would be responsible for even lower earnings potential for drivers than ride sharing already provides. We hear all the time complaints about how the gig economy doesn't pay a living wage (even though it isn't supposed to, but that's a different matter). What do you think would happen if these companies were forced to compete in some idiotic algorithm led race to the bottom on pricing? How much work do you think those companies NOT willing to utilise essentially slave labour at that point would get?
Yanis is not extraordinary. He's an ideologue, and THAT is why Greece turned away from him.
The ONLY thing I agree with Yanis about from this video, is that the leaders of both major parties are spineless. Where we differ however is I genuinely believe Sunak wants to do right by his constituents. This, all students must do math thing is honestly not given the credit it deserves in the media. Starmer on the other hand, I get the distinct impression from his behaviour, he would throw his own grandmother under a bus if he had the slightest incling it would garner temporary popularism towards him. He's a glory hunter with no real ideas of his own, and whom constantly contradicts himself. A Britain with Starmer at the helm is even more lost than it is today.
5
-
5
-
4:30 I'm sorry, while some of the things he's saying are indeed true how can we be expected to take a man wearing fluoro green nail polish seriously? That's clearly not a person with sound decision making capacity.
Edit: With regards the earlier piece and the conclusions. The conclusions are not apt or reasonable. The UK under funds because the UK is bankrupt.
More importantly however, beyond a basic staffing level which the UK already has, the positive impact of more staffing in healthcare on patient outcomes is minimal.
By your staffing chart Australia, New Zealand and Japan all do poorly but have amongst the best healthcare outcomes in the world.
You mentioned emmigration to Australia and New Zealand but failed to mention that Australia's medical body AHPRA is seriously investigating a category change for medical and healthcare workers immigrating from the UK to require additional training before they are allowed to practice. NZ's medical council is considering the same. The reason for this is poor outcomes involving graduates from the UK.
You can not fix an NHS staffed by under/poorly trained medical and healthcare personnel without fixing the training first.
Let me give you a first hand anecdotal example of their poor training. My FIL died of lung cancer last year. He caught covid in 2020, then again in 2021. He survived both. He had reduced lung capacity afterwards, so NHS practitioners were "monitoring him closely". He had ct scans, he had an mri, he had xrays. They diagnosed him with COPD. But that was a misdiagnosis. He actually had lung cancer which they didn't detect despite looking right at it for a year, until it progressed into his throat and he was stage 4. He died 3 and a half weeks after diagnosis. I have been in medicine for 18 years, I've run hospitals and that level of utter incompetence floored me. Looking at his records after the indicators of lung cancer appear in his scans and blood work towards the end of 2020 and they were obvious to anyone adequately trained. If diagnosed then he had a good prognosis.
Australia and New Zealand are starting to see these exact kinds of outcomes, and they're coming from UK healthcare immigrants. The AHPRA stats don't lie. They are not adequately trained. The problem starts long before university, it starts in primary school. The UK has a fundamental education problem and it's global education rankings reflect that.
The NHS doesn't just need a bunch of money the country doesn't have thrown at it to up wages for people who arguably don't know what they're doing. NHS needs staff that have adequate education and training, and that means in the short to medium term those people largely need to be sourced from other OECD nations.
As do lecturers in UK universities. Meanwhile education needs a complete overhaul. Ground up because the poor education outcomes aren't just affecting healthcare graduates, they're damaging the entire economy, and then poor healthcare outcomes damage the economy further.
This is long term policy the UK desperately needs, so the next generation come into the work force capable.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ybor20 The irony of your comment telling me to be informed is that you just demonstrated you aren't.
On 26 February, the UN security council, to which both Australia and the EU are members, voted unanimously to pass a resolution for equitable access to vaccines by all countries.
In a rare move, all members co-sponsored the resolution. That means, the EU co-sponsored a resolution 8 days ago that no country should do precisely what they just did, then went ahead and did precisely what they agreed no country should.
Moreover, their insistence this isn't a one of situation has had a chilling effect on all countries who have purchased from European manufacturers. There is the potential for a claim at a UNHCR violation if they do this again, particularly to a country more in need of those vaccines than Australia is.
AstraZeneca is British company headquartered in Cambridge. As you might have heard, it's hard to tell how far in the sand your head really is, Britain is no longer part of the EU.
AstraZeneca acquired the master manufacture and distribution licence from Oxford University (also in the UK) for their vaccine.
The Italia manufacturing site these 250,000 doses were coming from is not owned by AstraZeneca but instead a sublicensing partner. Australia's CSL is also a sublicensing partner. These 250,000 doses were supposed to cover the spread while CSL ramps up production.
In a few weeks parts of the EU will be asking Australia for some of our surplus vaccine. Guess what we in Australia are likely to say to that request now.
The contract the EU has with AstraZeneca and it's partners is completely irrelevant to the fulfillment of other orders from other purchasing nations. AstraZeneca has as much of an obligation to all countries who have purchased from it, as it does to the EU.
Imagine if you walked into a fast food restaurant and made an order. Then, because they told you that you'd have to wait 4 minutes for part of your order you tried to stop other customers getting their orders in the meantime. That's essentially what the EU are pulling here.
And they're pulling it in Italia where 4/5th of their vaccine delivery is sitting in storage unable to be distributed due to their own distribution network issues and a localised skepticism to the vaccine.
The EU can talk about Australia apparently being in a "better position" all they like, but at the end of the day they're in the top 3 countries globally on percentage of population vaccinated, while Australia is only just starting the roll out this week.
This move by Italia and the EU was chilling and unnecessary. The EU is in a good position as far as vaccinations are concerned, and they need to be patient on supplies instead of throwing a tantrum about an order quality to time scale, that was unreasonable and unrealistic to begin with.
So in future, before you go around telling people to be informed I suggest to make sure that you actually are yourself. Otherwise you just look foolish.
And to the EU, I repeat, focus on ensuring you do not interrupt vaccine supply chains again instead of the endless hissy fit you're having at the UK because they don't want to be in your club anymore.
5
-
5
-
5
-
No. You weren't listening. The £37.5B costings were from 2017. The latest public costings from 2021 (BEFORE INFLATION) were £71.2B, double and they'd be even higher today factoring in inflation. Closer to £90B and no sign of those ballooning costs stabilising. Given the time scale remaining on HS2 completion it's realistic the project could end up costing somewhere between one and two hundred billion pounds.
Many of the costs come from red tape and the need to build huge sections underground for various reasons. Whilst costs for the project continue to rise, other infrastructure projects have their funding robbed.
Private investment may be a way forward for it, but we just don't know whether that has been explored or not. What do you think would be better, another 2 decades of infrastructure maintenance, upgrades and new projects put off to the side to fund HS2, or scrapping HS2 to ensure these things can happen over the next 20 years? I'm not sure, I suspect different people will answer that question differently. But what is exceedingly clear given the budget position of the UK, is that you can't have both. You have to choose.
Be aware that some of these projects do involve sections of HS2 track, so presumably those sections will still be completed. It may be the case that a future government can simply join those sections together to effectively deliver HS2 (probably by another name) at a point when the UK doesn't have a half trillion pound budget deficit anymore that's grown over the last 20 years of bipartisan governments since Blair. Perhaps might I dare to say, when the budget has finally returned to surplus, however hard to imagine that ever happening might be, particularly if Starmer who is on record wanting to make the deficit larger, gets in at the next election.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I enjoyed the part where they tried to play up 26 shootings and the state dept issued a warning not to go there. I wonder if the state dept have taken a look at the number of shootings in St Louis lately? How about Chicago? California, Texas, Florida, N Carolina, Georgia anyone?
26 represents just a Saturday evening in STL some weekends. According to ABC there have been 13,900 gun related deaths in the USA in 2023 through to the end of APRIL.
But the state dept is issuing warnings over 26 in Baja? 😂 Excuse me while I don't take that as a serious advisory. It's a cesspool of homelessness, gun violence, drug use and lawlessness out there. People walk into stores now and just take half the shop without paying and no one cares, no one does anything to stem the billions in losses from retail every month. You know, the thing that underpins the entire economy?
There's an epidemic of car thefts, but not one goes after the organised gangs of thieves, no, no. They issue a lawsuit against the car manufacturers for not including enough antitheft technology in the base model as standard. Then the argument they use is, why do you include it in EU vehicles where the base salary is 3 times what it is in the US and the currency stronger. 🤣
Every other country in the planet should have advisory warnings for their citizens not to visit the USA. Too dangerous, more than a thousand tourists shot this year alone.
Stop the partisan bs, both major parties are allowing themselves to have their policies dictated by fringe extremists.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@KumaBearOso Men are predators, women are victims, yes if you read my stand comment on this video I discuss that concept and how it is the root cause of all the inequality. So I agree with you in so far as this concept exists and is prevailing. However, from there we disagree.
Yes, that attitude does exist widely. But that is not an excuse to not call it out or oppose it when it where you see it. Particularly when it is taken to such an extreme by someone close to you as to directly cause harm to an innocent party. An ocean is but a sea of drops, how do you expect to affect change if you can't even stand up to it in those closest to you?
Your conclusions about gender roles is a non-sequitur. This approach is actually one of the driving forces behind such social attitudes. Once upon a time men dominated the education and healthcare sectors, with total trust. That change is relatively recent, merely few generations old. It's why males in these industries are in decline, as opposed to non-existent or stable.
Males as perpetrators and females as victims builds upon past existing social realities of women not being able to participate in key sections of society particularly the workforce in any meaningful way and thus being largely reliant on men; by casting society as some kind of black and white power struggle between sexes with men as the "bad" and women as "good". That is to say, this paradigm is at it's heart a tool used by feminists to shift things in their favour.
It must be noted it traditionally has not been such a struggle at all and instead been about complimenting partners. That's where gender roles come from and why society is most stable and coherent with them. There absolutely has been inequality in the past, and we were right to remove it. But in moving towards gender equality we have not cast off these associations.
But should it really be so surprising that we have not? Having achieved equality so much as reality can provide, 4th wave feminism have abandoned a search for equality altogether and seeing how well their tools have worked are seeking now to dominate with inequality in their favour.
Importantly this is not all women, the vast majority of women are not 4th wave feminists at all and oppose their ideas. And yet 4th wave feminist ideology prevailing in many western societies. This is no longer great grandmas suffrage movement. It's now a cynical power grab seen through the distorted lens of some fictional real world battle of the sexes. It's conquest by division.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This is a misunderstanding. It isn't that there aren't enough jobs to go around per se, as the system requires that unemployment sits in a target range for the economy to remain afloat.
When it gets too low, like it currently is, demand far exceeds supply and productivity, so high inflation results. Workers greater bargaining power in the market so wage hikes occur, often without the productivity justification so inflation gets higher still.
When it gets too high, there aren't enough people with disposable income to spend so there's a recession which leads to even higher unemployment. Employers have all the bargaining power so wages plummet.
The economy is a balancing act about purposefully keeping between 4.5% - 5.5% of working age people seeking to participate in the workforce, outside of work. Ideally there should be some mobility in that system such that who it's affecting individually shifts over time, but that rarely is the case practically.
This range keeps leverage between employers and workers closer to one another, so there remains some pressure on upward wages in line with productivity, whilst allowing inflation to remain within the 2%-3% target range to fight devaluation.
That's how capitalism is designed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The reasons are on the record already. This is conflict zone, the name itself should give you a hint to the format. It's about cutting through the media training, the avoiding of questions, the deflection and pushing for answers to hard questions that people want to know the answer to and that have a journalistic duty to ask.
These aren't softball questions and it isn't the evening report. It's conflict zone. If you can't take the heat, don't agree to run into the fire.
The use of "as you know" at the beginning of every statement is a common tactic to try and win favour. You're saying to the other person, we're on the same side we're both in the know in an effort to get a better deal. He was hoping to get softball questions and be able to plug his narrative without any pushback.
The moment he realised he was going to have facts used against him, that this was going to be confrontational and he'd have to answer some pretty difficult questions he bailed.
The reality is he's a fugitive with an international arrest warrant in his name, who breached bail and fled to a non-extradition country to avoid justice. The reality is, any justice system that would prosecute him for his crimes, he sees as unfair and incapable of justice, and anyone who doesn't want to just buy his narrative is a bad actor. In his mind there is an elaborate global conspiracy against him.
This is the mind of a narcissist.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This was a pretty empty segment that went nowhere, said nothing and introduced no new information. The difference between the past and now isn't about resources scarcity, that's factually incorrect. We had quality right into the late 80s and for some product segments into the early 2000s.
What changed was both consumer and corporate behaviour. In the 1940s and 50s, companies even very large ones, were family businesses. As such they were interested in more than simply maximising profits. There are plenty of dramas from the late 50s that cover the transition away from the family business and towards the profit centric faceless corporation.
Today companies have a legally bound obligation to put profits before everything else. The government, and it's the same across the OECD, have commanded companies to put profits first at the benefit of shareholders. It's usually to do with keeping poor fiscal retirement policy afloat because super funds are the biggest investors in the market.
Consumer behaviour has also changed, trained in over the years by corporations to maximise profit. In 1960 if your iron broke, you'd either fix it or go make your own new one. Products needed to be of high quality in order to attract customers whom otherwise would either make it themselves or just not have one with no hard feelings.
Today if something breaks the consumer will just go buy a new one. Because of brand loyalty it'll be the same piece of junk that just broke too. You don't need to build quality to get people to buy something anymore, you just need to get some kid on the internet whose only claim to fame is saying how cool products are, to say how cool your product is. Then every man and his dog will go buy it.
Once it was cheaper to build a thing yourself. Now it's dramatically more expensive to. The retail price of raw materials has been artificially inflated over the years to make this very scenario. Go check out the unit pricing for manufacturers raw materials. Even wholesale raw materials. Huge difference to retail.
Many products you can't build yourself at all no matter the price because they contain proprietary electronics that they won't sell to you.
Consumerism has turned us into drones who work to give our earned wealth to someone else for things which have a high price and low value. They use social manipulation and psychology to compel you to buy. Only government can solve this through thoughtful regulation.
Think about it, you have consumer rights but how do you enforce those rights these days? The commerce commission does nothing to help, it's hands are tied. Your only option to enforce your consumer rights is to sue which often costs much more than just wearing the loss.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
It appears to me on the basis of questions such as "why does it take so long" thar there is quite a great deal of confusion, or misunderstanding when it comes to what processing an asylum claim actually means. This isn't a situation where you fill in a form, some data entry clerk puts it into a computer and tada you're accepted or denied on the strength of that form. It isn't anything like applying for government services.
These are migrants making an irregular border crossing, often without any identity documentation whatsoever. But they still need to be identified. You can't just take them at their word, everything they claim has to be verified.
Genuine asylum claimants are coming from countries beset by war. Trying to talk to a government department in such a country to verify an identity under those circumstances is difficult at best. Even harder when they come from an undeveloped country that lacks such a department in the first place and doesn't track births/identities.
That alone can take a lot of time and we've only just gotten to the name. Verifying identity is essential because you don't want war criminals, people escaping justice or illegal economic migrants pretending to be someone else. Indeed identity verification is so important it's covered in the refugees convention.
Then they have to verify that you actually came from the country you claim to have. This includes checking with other countries whether you've been granted refugee status there.
Then you have to verify that the country is involved in a legally defined military conflict for the purpose of the convention. This isn't as simple as it might initially sound. One doesn't just turn on the news and see that someone with guns is fighting someone else. It's entirely possible for there to be a conflict in a country and it to not meet the legal definition under the convention. Defining it involves a whole lot of bureaucracy and legal advice.
Or, you have to verify that the individual is part of a group inside a country being persecuted for a protected trait in a way which meets the convention. That too is a whole lot of bureaucracy and lawyers.
This isn't just a person in a cubical making a decision unilaterally on each claim based on their own personal judgement. There are interviews, cross department discussions, bilateral discussions with other countries, field work, the intelligence services can be involved in which case a claim has to wait for them to have time, there are all kinds of things that have to happen before a claim can be decided. They take time.
Then, once a claim is decided a claimant has the right to challenge a decision and that whole process involves review, may require additional information gathering and ultimately regularly progresses into the courts. That takes time too.
The ECHR has a ridiculous rule in it which is not part of the international convention that requires signatory nations to grant leave to stay to claimants whom have been denied asylum but can demonstrate they have developed community roots (a job, friendships, community participation such as volunteer work, time spent in the country, etc). It's a loophole in the system that economic migrants regularly exploit and is the main reason that so many asylum claimants volunteer for organisations directed at asylum claimants. This rule which the UK must follow so long as it's part of the ECHR gives the government incentive for claims to be processed as quickly as possible. But it also gives incentive for illegal economic migrants to delay the processing of their claims as much as possible. The longer they've been in country the higher the likelihood of being granted leave to stay despite not being granted refugee status.
This is actually where the 88% figure on percentage of boat people being granted leave to stay comes from. If you look at the finer numbers, number of boat people granted refugee status is just 13%.
This isn't a situation where you could just issue a directive and make claims processing faster. It runs as fast as it can given the geopolitical environment we live in. What you could do is create a list of known economic migrant countries like the EU is doing and fast track those claims. But then you still have delays with appeals through the courts. You could take the right to appeal away but then you're stomping all over the UDHR, domestic laws and you'd have the UN involved.
The real solution is to send them to a third, undesirable country, such as Rwanda and process their claims from there. This removes their right to appeal through the courts and prevents illegal economic migrants from having an opportunity to claim they have community roots. It still allows you to welcome genuine refugees and process their claims.
Given the facility in the third country is owned and operated by the UK, with UK security, they remain safe. But it deters unskilled or low skilled economic migrants from trying to hijack the asylum system to escape poverty. Poverty is not something you can claim asylum against and is not protected.
Letting such migrants in doesn't just threaten the economy, it's a type of colonialism because you're robbing the source countries of their best and brightest, the very people those countries need to end poverty and develop.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lee9650 Yeah no, that's a false equivalency. It's nothing like saying don't go to school if you can't afford lunch. No one is talking about groceries.
Perhaps more importantly schooling is compulsory because it teaches you how to be an employee and a member of society. Whether you realise it or not, you use the things you are taught in school throughout day to day life. University is not.
Everyone would like to be in a better position than they're in. Everyone, it's a key function of social animals that the individuals should always be striving to better their position. I'd like to be richer than Bezos but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it in any way. Bettering ones position is about hard work, means and talent.
It is fraudulent to suggest that the only means for someone to better their position is by going to university. Here are some ONS figures to help you with the facts.
• 50% of UK university graduates do not work in their field of study. HALF!
• Only 13% of graduates stay in the same job for more than 4 years.
• 59.9% of first year university students are mature students (21+).
• 57% of high school graduates do not go to university
Skills shortage jobs tend to pay better than their non-shortage counterparts. I suggest you actually take a look at the list. A list mine you that only exists because 46% of school leavers think they have to go to university to do a handful of courses, where half of undergraduates will never work in that field anyway.
How much paying "enough" is, seems a lot like how long is a piece of string. What I can tell you is that the median full-time income in the UK is £31K.
IT roles, trades, technician and STEM support roles, health and social care support roles and roles relating to the arts all feature predominantly on the list.
Many of the IT roles in question just require the relevant certs, which involve self study and passing a single paid test. Then you enter roles where the median income is £39K. There are also IT traineeships where you are paid to learn.
Technician and other STEM support roles likewise are entry level roles often doing on the job training or at most a 1 year college certificate. Their median income is £34K
Orchestral musicians are apparently in short supply. They make a median of 29K with only their instrument training required.
Trades have the benefit of paid apprenticeships so you are paid to learn. After finishing the apprenticeship, skilled registered tradesmen make between £66K - £90K median depending on the specific trade.
Business traineeships pay you to learn how to be a manager where the median income is £42K
There is nothing stopping someone who can not afford university as a school leaver, going out to work, saving up and returning to university if that's what they really want. Remember 59.9% of uni students are mature age now, so that's clearly what many people are doing.
You are not entitled to any position in life. You are not entitled to university. If you can not afford university, don't go. Look elsewhere for gainful employment.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is what you get when you vote for parties, not people. When you vote with ideology not for policy and platform.
This is what happens in every democratic and pseudo-democratic nation around the world when voters do such things.
I don't blame the political parties for this, corruption can be found wherever accountability and consequence can not. I lay the blame for this squarely on teachers and media, for failing to do their jobs, and producing two generations now of a divisive, uninformed, overly emotive, ideologically driven voter base, whom do not know how their political systems work.
These are the institutions whose responsibility it is to teach people HOW to think, not WHAT to think. These are the institutions who are intended to teach people how to critically evaluate information and to provide the latest, unbiased important information possible. As these institutions dissolve, so too does democracy for they are it's cornerstones.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hermanspaerman3490 Yeah, no. That's just your weird little fantasy.
Back in reality, there is almost zero chance of a revision to the UDHR and the convention on refugees. The only revisions that are being given any actual consideration are revisions to streamline the process for asylum applications to make it easier for people to seek asylum and faster for their applications to be processed.
Honestly though, we're talking about robust legislation that's been around since 1947 so even those revisions are unlikely to pass.
The asylum system can't really be exploited. Turning up to a border and claiming asylum does not instantly grant you refugee status nor does it instantly mean you get to stay in said country indefinitely. All it means is you get to lodge an asylum application, that must be processed in accordance with international law, and while it is being processed you must be given basic amenities (food, housing, etc) and a chance to demonstrate your application in court.
For many developed countries the basic amenities take the form of a mass detention centre, but group housing and asylum camps with just tents are common all over.
An asylum application has to demonstrate that you both meet the criteria under the UDHR to qualify as a refugee and that you are not a security threat (ie. You don't have a criminal record for doing anything that is illegal in the host country, you don't subscribe to certain ideologies, etc).
If the application fails to demonstrate these things it will be rejected and the individual will be legally deported. Lots of asylum applications, including ones that really are genuine asylum claims end in rejection.
If the application demonstrates these things it is accepted and you are granted refugee status. A refugee can be given a temporary visa for a set number of years, or once certain conditions have been met, or a refugee can be given permanent residence. It's handled on a case by case basis.
If granted refugee status, under EU law they are allowed to move freely throughout the EU and can settle in any EU country at that point. None of the asylum seekers attempting to cross the Polish border want to stop in Poland, they all want to settle in Germany because they believe Germany invited them. Those granted refugee status will simply move to Germany, in the mean time under EU law Poland can ask for additional EU funding to cope with processing their applications.
They believe they were invited because Germany or more precisely Merkel, did indeed invite all Syrians to go to Germany in 2015. An invitation like that once given will take decades to rescind, we're talking not until somewhere around 2060 will Germany manage to stop the flow.
For the record, everyone in Syria meets the criteria for a refugee. Every last Syrian. It's only down to their security status if they are granted refugee status or not. Most Syrian asylum claims are granted a conditional temporary visa that ends when the Syrian civil war ends and the country stablises. In truth, that probably won't happen in our lifetime.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Shan I enjoyed that you said the question is not about why the energy prices are high, it's about why you imagine the energy prices are high. I also enjoyed that when someone disagreed with your honestly quite ignorant comment, you just called them a shill to dismiss the challenge to your stance. That's incredibly intellectually dishonest and lazy.
Here's a little dose of reality for you. The EU is not a sovereign entity, it's 27 separate sovereign countries each experiencing inflation differently depending on their domestic conditions. Your claim is even more absurd than that, you're talking about Europe as a whole. So let's talk Europe.
The UK CPI inflation is 8.9%
As of 10 May the same is
50.4% in Turkey <--- The actual worst in Europe
17.2% in Latvia
15.5 in Serbia
12.2% in Romania
If we move your goal post and stick to just the EU it's
25.6% in Hungry
15.6% in Estonia
15.2% in Poland
9.2% in Austria
You might not have done math in high school so you may not realise that when you average Europe to get lower numbers, but exclude the UK which is a part of Europe that's bad math designed to get a dishonest outcome. Even Germany at 7.8% inflation does worse than the European average because of financial capitals like Switzerland and Luxembourg whom remain inside their <3% inflation target.
The energy profits are made offshore, they aren't made by the companies you're getting a bill from. Your energy bills would have been the same regardless of whether the UK was inside or outside the EU because that's not the cause of energy pricing.
The UK does worse on energy than markets like France and Germany because those countries;
1. Have a higher proportion of essential manufacturing and heating in sources alternative to gas, particularly they are further down the electrification road. Where as 89% of the UK are reliant on gas for heating and 80% reliant on the same for key manufacturing.
2. Both have diverse energy mixes, although Germany is decommissioning much of theirs which is driving up domestic energy prices.
3. Both countries maintain large gas reserves, which negate market price volatility and give generators/distributors greater certainty on prices. In contract the UK doesn't even hold 1% of supply in reserves which exposes it directly to market pricing including large spikes and troughs.
4. Both France and Germany continue to buy discounted 2/3rd of externally sourced gas from Russia through Algeria as an intermediary. The UK in contrast ceased buying from Russia and has become almost entirely reliant on the far more expensive US shale gas.
That's where most of those profits you're talking about are going, straight into yankville who leveraged a war they created to extort Europe.
This isn't brexit, this is 4 decades of bipartisan inaction on energy security in the UK. The UK is so unimaginative that even in talking about the big renewables conversion, things like green hydrogen which could be produced on shore are being negotiated right now with the UAE to provide as imports.
The ideas you're pushing here are wrong, they're dishonest and they're based in misinformation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Back to the insincere reporting and dishonest graphs I see. And in the process as always, missed the actual story altogether. Instead we keep getting the line "mental health patients should be somewhere else". What do you think that's going to do to people in distress today, tomorrow, next week, who have seen this program?
Majors A is not the whole of A&E. It's a subsection. So the answer is no, 50% of A&E is not mental health patients.
The graph conveniently has no labels. 6 and 12 what? Percent? Hours? Thousand? Months? Double doesn't mean anything without statistical context.
Amazing, patients with an acute, complex presentation need to stay in A&E longer than those with less complex presentations. Amazing. Who would have thunk. You break a leg or get into a car accident, referral to x-ray, orthopaedics, surgery or a ward is pretty straightforward. Similarly if you present with schizophrenia induced psychosis referral on to a mental health bed is also straightforward. Whether physical or mental health related, those straightforward referrals make up 80%+ of cases (4:5).
In </=20% of cases, be it physical or mental, the presentation isn't a straightforward referral. That isn't a particularly odd percentage. Every A&E in the OECD has a similar mix. Someone comes in without a history of mental illness who wanted to self harm in the moment, they don't need admission, but you can't just immediately let them go. They need to be observed for some period of time, and how long that is will be on an individual case by case basis. So they sit in A&E, that's normal and has always been the case.
The actual story isn't that A&E have to treat mental illness, or crisis (which are different things btw).
The actual story is that there has been a large spike in people experiencing desperation, mental health crisis, and ideation of self harm. It isn't an increase in mental illness, it's an increase in stressors causing people to break and see no way out. That's about poverty, like old mate from the other day living on £30 a month. Guaranteed he's one of those statistics.
The destitute need more coverage. They do. Covering their plight gives them hope, but it also puts things into perspective for those in the middle class, the upper middle class and the wealthy. It keeps their situations on the forefront of the government's minds and the minds of everyone else. That's how things get fixed. That's how donations increase. It's how government's find solutions to real problems. Please cover it appropriately and with integrity. Not with nonsense graphs, manipulated interviews or biased half truths. Do real journalism, on real issues like you have for Gaza. Not ideology. Real issues like the rising destitute and the ripple effect that has on services, the budget, the economy and society as a whole.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@alexanderromanov737 You don't seem to understand the factors that have grown debt. Nor do you really understand the difference between good debt and bad debt.
This isn't a partisan issue, both major parties are complicit, both major parties produced this outcome. This in reality isn't labour vs tories. It's labour AND tories together.
When you reduce tax receipts below the minimum required to balance the budget you get a deficit. That means the country has to borrow money and pay interest on it to fill that gap in the budget.
When that gap is basic services the deficit continues unless you increase tax receipts. Over time with general base rate inflation, population growth, wage increases, higher services demand from an aging population, etc those same services cost more and more. That alone increases the budget deficit.
But then you throw in tax breaks at every election so tax receipts continue to shrink and that budget deficit really expands. It expands 10x in 23 years to just shy of £500 BILLION (with a B) *every year*. That's just off half a trillion dollars added to debt annually.
It's fine if that budget deficit is a one time deal for a single year or even for a fixed term in order to build out infrastructure and improve productivity. That's good debt because it's short term debt with long term financial rewards.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a budget deficit that exists not to pay for a specific wealth generating project but to pay the nations basic bills. That's bad debt. But even bad debt can be not too bad if it's only over a short period, a single budget for example before returning to black.
Unfortunately that too isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about 23 straight years of growing budget deficits 49% of which years labour were in government.
It's decades of bipartisan mistakes compounded on one another.
Then on top of it you add in CoVID and the nation having to borrow at historic levels so average citizens and business can survive instead of crashing the economy completely, followed by the high inflationary rebound that pushed interest on the borrowing higher causing the nation to have to borrow more money to pay the debt it already had.
If you were borrowing money to pay your basic expenses, every month, and then you started borrowing money to pay the money you had already borrowed, what would that be called? You'd be ..bankr...
This is the position the UK is currently in and it was a bipartisan effort to get there. Indeed, it could only have occurred as a bipartisan effort. I think you would be hard pressed to find a single competent member of parliament in either of the major parties.
The country is in dire shape and the union monkeys just want a bigger slice of an ever shrinking pie, whilst anyone with decent skills is jumping ship to greener pastures abroad.
Fixing this problem means raising taxes for the middle class, privatising pensions and cutting services. Period. The revenue office has been saying this for years. Either way, do something, don't do something, you're going to be poorer. It's just a matter of whether you want to be a little poorer from higher taxes, or a lot poorer under a collapsed economy. We're at that crunch point and regardless of whoever wins the next election they're going to raise taxes, privatise pensions and cut services. Labour are already starting to talk about doing this in more friendly words.
When labour talk about NHS reform, they mean cutting non-essential services and introducing co-pay.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Largr generative language models aren't real AI. It's silly to treat them as if they are, they're just chat bots.
1. Will become increasingly less of a problem as things improve. Given it took us 50 years to improve chat bots to this point, how long it will take to improve them to be competent is unknown. It will eventually happen though, you just might be older than you think when it does.
2. This is actually a very silly point. Who gets blamed when third party SAAS messes something up? Why would you assume rented generative models would be any different?
3. You don't get more jobs out of a requirement for experience. Capitalism doesn't work that way however, it doesn't go "oh well we could just keep the status quo or we could use this trendy thing that slows down productivity and will increase costs, guess we'll use the latter".
It's not going to be used in a commercial sense until it's good enough to reduce costs and increase productivity. Particularly when it's a paid service. The goal of capitalism is to reduce costs to as close to zero as possible (see slavery) whilst increasing price to consumer as high as the market will bare for maximum profits. If a tool doesn't help with those goals, it won't be used. But it's only a matter of time before it will help with those goals and that's what this video is talking about.
4. This point is puzzling, and I feel a little embarrassed for you having made it. It's not like everyone has stopped writing and publishing code, there will always be new code to scrape. It's like an organisation saying "well, I guess we already hired the cream of the crop programmers so all the new graduates should be ignored". But even if no new code was written, ever, if it already has all the good stuff, it already has all the good stuff. The model will improve. The training methodology will improve. As they do that dataset will become increasingly useful. Nothing is static, the point is not ChatGPT 4 - Turbo. The point is ChatGPT 25 - Ultra. It doesn't exist yet, but given Microsoft are all in and it's a useful tool in other areas it likely will become a reality in the future. Microsoft has an incentive to make it happen, it will reduce THEIR costs and increase THEIR productivity.
5. What about regulation does anyone imagine will prevent programmers from becoming obsolete, or near too eventually? Seriously, there's no proposal in any currently proposed or discussed legislation to prevent generative models from displacing workers. The legislation is centred more around giving I boundaries on what information it can give the general public, stopping it from disclosing secret or proprietary information, preventing crime, etc. The government doesn't care if programmers become obsolete, that's desirable because it increases the profits of the companies, thus it makes the economy more desirable.
Personally, I don't think programmers will become completely obsolete. Generative models are just a tool, one that needs to be operated by an intelligent and creative mind. How, what this tool does is increase productivity to the point the workforce required to achieve a project outcome is dramatically smaller. Like, 1-10 team members. That makes future demand far lower than supply and will thusly impact salary.
What matters is the timeline. If it's going to happen in the next 5 years, that's an existential problem to anyone studying CS or Software Development right now. But computers writing software has been a goal since the 70s. It seemed imminent in the 90s and then it wasn't. So for all we know it could be another 50 years away and meaningless to anyone in uni today. Nobody KNOWS the timeline. People can speculate. They can make informed educated guesses. But that's how the stock market works too, so I wouldn't put all my eggs in any basket.
The reality is, no role is stable and it never has been. Some hypothetical new proprietary technology we haven't heard about because they were keeping it secret from competitors could emerge tomorrow and wipe out the need for teachers or funeral directors. That's always been the case and history is littered with examples and roles that no longer exist. The smart worker never puts all their eggs in one basket. They never become so specialised in just one thing that if that role were to disappear they wouldn't be hireable. The smart worker remains versatile enough in their skill set that should their role or even entire industry evaporate they can rapidly pivot to something else.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Those aren't directly connected issues. They're semi-related for sure but the former is by far not reliant on the latter.
Coal, including thermal coal, is used in an abundance of activities not just for energy production. If Indonesia went 100% renewable energy tomorrow it would not impact coal mining.
Indeed Australia, who export just 17K fewer ton of coal per year has a plan to move to 100% renewables yet has enshrined in law that the coal industry will remain.
Simply taking coal out of the ground does not cause the coal itself to release any carbon into the atmosphere. The mining of coal in and of itself isn't a major contributor to AGW. As all large scale mining operations are transitioning their vehicle fleets to H-FCEV they will infact soon be net zero operations.
Coal is a critical ingredient in the production of steel, stainless steel, aluminium and other refined metals that require hardness. It is likewise a critical ingredient in shock resistant glasses such as the "gorilla glass" your phone screen is likely made from.
Coal is additionally a major ingredient of high end fertilisers intended for the agricultural sector.
Indeed coal, including thermal coal is used in the production of tens of thousands of different products even including the skin care and beauty sector.
Using coal in these products is not contributing to AGW in any meaningful way, and is not releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
As coal power generators are phased out, coal producers will move into new markets and find new products that coal can be a part of. You don't really think a multi trillion dollar industry is just going to stop, right? That's money that keeps about 50% of the G20 in the G20. Coal isn't going anywhere.
To thermal energy. Thermal energy is far from perfect, it has environmental impacts including encouraging more localised earthquakes. Plants take time to build, it's not a matter of saying it and it's done, renewables infrastructure for scaled energy production is 10-20 years away from completion at the time of announcement. You can't just stop production of electricity in that period, you have to rely on your current generation network (often coal) until the new grid is ready. There's no quick solutions to climate change
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There's a vast distance between workplace banter and assault of any kind. Trying to link those things together or act as if they're as bad as each other is a disgrace.
I'm sorry but some industries have offensive banter as part of their process for dealing with the job they have to undertake. It's not just law enforcement, it's every military force, it's all emergency services. It's mining, it's people on oil rigs and in steel foundries, it's electrical linesmen, builders and crime scene cleaners, it's shipbuilders, etc.
If you're the type of snowflake whom is easily offended, don't join those types of industries. It's like this in every country on the planet. Trying to shut down that type of banter inside these kinds of industries is exceptionally dangerous. If you don't understand why, you don't get to have an opinion on this.
The complaint about the length of disciplinary procedures acting as if it's only law enforcement is dishonest. All government agencies have disciplinary procedures which make it exceptionally difficult to fire an employee. Try getting a teacher sacked. Try getting someone at the DVLA fired. Someone working for the NHS. It's incredibly difficult, even internally, even when it's management leading the charge and their incompetency is well evidenced. Government employees are protected. Labor brought that in.
Vetting for UK police forces is an absolute joke. It's bearly existent. Vetting needs to be fixed across all areas not just passed criminal activity. Fitness, strength, IQ, etc are all set up in such a way as to wave everyone through. They do their international standard beep test across 15m instead of the global standard of 20m, because everyone except very young children and the infirm can make it to level 5.1 on 15m. People with disabilities or injuries that would disqualify them from any other service in Europe get hired in the UK. There is no grip test across many of the UKs police services. In some UK police services they don't even have to complete a timed obstacle course to demonstrate their ability to handle the requirements of a foot pursuit. These are standard tests the western world over and the UK has discarded them.
This isn't just a problem of "bad apples". There are many very nice people in the various UK police forces whom also shouldn't be wearing the uniform because they would be disqualified anywhere else.
Law enforcement requires a very specific type of person, with an above average IQ and a very specific body type. I'm not going to lie more men than women have that kind of body type but some women have it too and they should be included. What shouldn't be included are people, regardless of gender, whom lack the necessary qualities to safely and effectively perform the job.
That includes a thick skin, because anything you hear in workplace banter is going to be mild compared to what you hear every day on the street performing your job.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This isn't quite accurate.
Inflation is a complex issue, but it ultimately means for a ranges of reasons the currency, in this case the pound, is being devalued at a specific rate per cycle period. That period can be anything from a day to a year.
When they're talking about these inflation numbers they mean per quarter.
Getting inflation under control is about stabilising or lifting currency value, reducing demand, increasing productivity (not growth) and regulating supply. Think of it like this, there's too much cash in the market so the value of that cash reduces.
If you pull cash out of the market (that's how higher interest rates help), then you stabilise the value or lift it. Inflation is the rate a currency loses value.
Cost of living is a bit more complex than just rate of inflation. How much a thing costs has many factors, not just supply and demand. The inputs to business costes contribute too because ultimately a business exists to make as much revenue (specifically profit as a share of revenue) as the market will bear. That's where competition comes in, creating a force to reduce price in order to maintain market share.
All this means that the process of reducing inflation will reduce costs for business but it will likewise dramatically reduce demand. Where demand dips and the businesses expenses dip too, prices drop.
You're not going to see 2019 prices again, but the prices for most consumer goods and services will drop with inflation to much more affordable levels. Some consumer goods won't drop, but they're going to be niche goods or have more complex causes for higher prices beyond general inflation.
I know that aas "long" but it was important to provide that brief explanation in order for you all to understand why prices will in fact come down.
Edit: It's essential for everyone to understand that lifting wages just pushes more cash into the market and increases costs for business which must be recouped, that makes the problem worse not better. You can't simply lift wages to get out of inflation, that makes it structural and then you're in inflation for a long time, a decade or more. No one wants that.
The only way to combat inflation is to spend far less and save far more. It's right to lift benefits, those aren't people contributing to inflation in any meaningful way. But for the middle class and above, stop buying so much junk you don't need. Stick to the bear necessities and save the rest. That's how you do your duty for country.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I have worked with many very fine nurses, but being a good person or good at your job doesn't mean you get paid more than that role is worth. It certainly does not mean that you get to hold the nation hostage during the worst global inflationary event since 1977, because you can't afford a second holiday without doing some overtime.
Yes @sungaze1012 nurses are on wards with patients. That's their job. To be an assistant to doctors, so you can have one doctor and many nurses covering a ward. The point there is the nurses are significantly less trained than the doctor, and thus get lower pay.
The market pays based on skill level, and the scarcity of those skills in the market. Nurses do a fantastic job, but so do all of the support staff in the kitchen, housekeeping, and wardies. So do the doctors, allied health practitioners, medical technicians, lab techs, phlebotomist, pharmacists, the administrators, IT staff, security guards and the thousands of VOLUNTEERS.
Let's not pretend nurses are more important than they are. A hospital needs all of it's parts to function. Let's stop being silly about this. The strikes need to stop. It was bad enough doing it for one day, continuing on with strike action is putting patient lives and outcomes in serious jeopardy.
Finances are hard for everyone right now, not just the unionists whom have voted to strike. We need calmer, cooler heads to ride this inflationary event out so things can get to where they should be. That's how we solve this crisis, not through strikes that leave nurses with less money.
4
-
@Shirokuma15 Last Monday there were a million people on the street. The violence started, and by Friday it was down to a few thousand. Today, a week later it's a few hundred young people who don't know better and are living a fantasy.
Everyone old enough to know how this goes, has stopped being involved. They understand that there's nothing they can do right now to change their situation.
It's a military dictatorship ffs with a long history of violence against civilians including genocide, torture and extreme use of force. You can't topple that with photos stuck to the ground and some dinky barriers.
Especially not when China sent in new weapons to Myanmar last week and the week before. A fortnight of nightly weapons deliveries.
The goal of the Tatmadaw is to suppress the resistance through fear, intimidation and violence. The clear and obvious plan is to hold new "elections" next year when Min Aung Hlaing retires as the leader of the military. It is clear and obvious to anyone who knows the history of Myanmar and Min Aung Hlaing, that he intends to stand in that election. He's already won it, he decided. To make sure he can claim his rigged election was democracy he's thrown every valid NLD competition in prison for at least 2 years meaning they won't be able to run.
He's setting himself up to be dictator for life, with the full backing of the Tatmadaw (the military), China and Russia.
There isn't anything the people of Myanmar can do about it right now. Dying for this lost cause is a waste of life. It won't change anything, it won't make anything better for anyone, it won't spur action from the west... It's meaningless.
We need to do all that we can to encourage them to just lay low for now, to not get themselves killed. To preserve their lives. Min Aung Hlaing won't live forever, the youth today can build a democratic Myanmar when he dies in a decade or two.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I really dislike this interviewer. He is unprofessional as a journalist, allowing his personal bias, beliefs and political ideology taint everything he is involved in.
Interviewer: "what is the answer to my question! If you are someone in Sudan right now, terrified, you may have links to this country. How do you apply for asylum?"
Minister: "We have a reunion scheme to reunite families"
Interviewer: "But you might not have family"
The premise of the question being answered is someone with links to the UK. That is, family. If you don't have family in the UK, you don't have links to it either. If you have limks, you have a safe pathway to immigration through the families reunion scheme. If you don't have links to the UK, you don't get special treatment.
These emotional arguments about level of fear, aren't actual arguments. Please stop making them.
Minister: " The refugee convention also says that people should seek sanctuary, should seek asylum, in the first safe country..."
This is the only thing the interviewer got right. It's either a bald faced lie or the minister for immigration has never actually read the refugees convention and the UDHR and is thus completely incompetent. It is entirely untrue that the convention says that. Under international law an asylum seeker can seek asylum in whichever country they choose without regard to the nature of any transitory nation they pass through.
For the record though, the asylum system as it stands today is the new colonialism.
Interviewer: "Minister, when did you become a higher moral authority than the arch bishop of Canterbury?"
These leading, loaded questions have to stop. This isn't journalism. There is no substance to the question let alone any potential answer thereto.
To answer the question, when he was voted in by his constituents to represent all of them secularly as opposed to being appointed to represent the interests of a corupt organisation and the values of those whom believe in the butchered words of a storybook as truth. More people in the UK aren't Anglican than are, so his moral authority is exceptionally limited.
Interviewer: "Just on that, the majority of people who come here, that are applying for asylum on small boats, are given leave to remain. They're found to be legitimate."
FALSE. The idea that being given leave to remain means they are found to be legitimate asylum seekers is a non-sequitur. Review the law.
If you enter a host country and claim asylum, and that asylum claim takes time to process whereby you have opportunity to make connections to the community by way of friends (even if just other asylum seekers), have a place of residence, have an income (even if just the dole), etc then by law even if you do not meet the requirements of your asylum claim you will still be granted leave to remain on the grounds you should not remove people from a community with which they have links.
This is where the majority of leave to remain statistics come from and is a massive loop hole economic migrants exploit. Not just in the UK but across the whole of the signatory OECD nations. Leave to remain and legitimate asylum claim are not the same thing. It's a point of massive contention around the global asylum system in the UNGA and UNHDR. Much work is being done to try to fix this problem, they've been trying to fix it since 2013.
There is a lot of interest across the OECD in the Australian model, which is the same model the Tories are trying to push through. The Australian model works, period.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The thing is @Arcalargo it isn't the me saying of the thing that makes it true. It's true because it represents actual reality, that I'm saying it is inconsequential.
Insurance does not work the way you're describing. Insurance isn't some magical pit of money somewhere that makes everything better. They're a business too, out to make profit.
All business, at least the kind that become successful and don't go bankrupt, are risk averse. That applies whether you're a retail outlet, a manufacturer, a hotel or an insurance company. Risk aversion means that somewhere, either a team has crunched the numbers and reported to the board or the board has crunched the numbers directly. They understand the probabilities, the risks and the costs of any given scenario and created policy surrounding that.
The well known historical case of Ford in the 80s deciding any given law suit resulting from a death caused by a known faulty part would be cheaper than a general recall highlights exactly what I'm talking about. That is risk aversion and every single competent business, from SME to Multinational mega corp involves themselves in risk aversion.
Another example of risk aversion is the difficulty with which to get money out of an insurance company on a claim. If you're a business and you loose 30% of inventory in a month, even if the insurance company would eventually pay out (which they regularly do not), the time, expense and productivity loss of filing and chasing a claim eats further into profit. 30% of inventory loss is a big deal.
Some theft will occur, but limiting that theft so a business does not go bankrupt is an everyday concern for every business on the planet. Even non-profits have to worry about it.
It's horrible that some people died, and no one is saying it was a great decision to lock fire doors. But describing that as murder makes you look like a hysterical clown. You have to understand it from the businesses point of view (and the law does) that these measures are only necessary because the staff and patrons are dodgy.
I mean come on mate, the staff burnt the hotel down because they couldn't get the wage increase they wanted. That is murder, that's why they went to prison and not hotel management. If you're an employer with employees whom would rather burn down their place of employment altogether than accept a modest pay rise, and staff had a history of starting fires, what do you imagine they're like on thefts?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Risk aversion is what keeps businesses afloat and staff employed. If you're looking to finger point, start with the 3 assholes who burnt the place down.
4
-
@ww1ww258 I love that you moved from accusing the hotel of murder to now accusing them of criminal negligence. But they aren't, as demonstrated by the fact they weren't charged nor did they face any legal repercussion. You seem to be throwing out accusations of offences without actually understanding what those offences mean.
See when you're risk averse you have lawyers involved in the process of policy writing, and boards spend something like 30-50% of their meeting time evaluating new regulatory requirements and amendments that may have any bearing on their operations.
Risk aversion means you're making the moves that leave you least financially and legally responsible for a thing. They don't outright break the law, they just bend it as far as they can be reasonably sure it will go.
3 men went to prison for murder. Not for manslaughter. Not for GBH. Not for negligence. For MURDER. That means a prosecutor was able to convince a jury of their peers they WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY set out to cause death. They purposefully set a fire in a position where it would be hard to detect until it was already out of control, that took advantage of deficiencies in the fire alarm and control systems they were in the unique position to know about given their roles, to place that fire in a place where it would cut off exits and create the greatest chance of death.
This wasn't an accidental fire. It wasn't caused by poor maintenance or negligence. It was a willful act to place a fire in a position it would otherwise be impossible for a fire to start. If you actually familiarise yourself with this case, including the layout of the floor instead of just relying on the poor representation given in this video you'll quickly understand that guests would normally run out the front exit in this situation, but were blocked on purpose by fire. The fire pushed them into that room where the arsonists again owing to their positions knew the doors were locked.
This wasn't just a light hearted thing by some staff. It was a cold, calculated mass execution to cause as much damage and destruction to the hotel as possible because management wouldn't concede to their pay demands and instead were offering modest increases.
"BuT wHaT aBoUt ThE cOrPoRaTiOnS"
Grow up mate. You have zero understanding. I get that it's fun to be outraged sometimes, and I'm sure if you're lonely it can be nice to feel part of a group. But forming world views / opinions on faulty information harms us all, and you're forming opinions right now from faulty information.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hastekulvaati9681 I'm sorry but that's utter nonsense. Stop reading headlines and actually understand the numbers behind those headlines. Russia saw 4.3% growth y/y in Q3 2021 above it's existing growth, in same period 2022 Russia saw a reduction in growth by 4% which leaves their economy still with 2.9% growth, a number the UK hasn't seen in 25 years.
Economic modelling suggests this dip in growth for Russia is temporary, resolving back to 4% by Q2 2023.
The UK is experiencing negative growth currently, with a projected rebound to just 1.75% growth by 2025.
That's self imposed madness. Who do you imagine you're helping doing that? You have to help yourself before you can help anyone else. This isn't about the pros or cons of the war in Ukraine, they have their own points. This is about the solvency of the UK, and it's ability to maintain it's position in the world.
Let's put reality aside for a moment and imagine the dictator Zelenskyy's scare campaign propaganda about Russia coming to invade all of Europe were true. The UK is already insolvent, it's bankrupt and paying it's bills with high interest loans. How do you imagine the UK manages to engage in any meaningful defence of itself from such an already weak financial position? It couldn't, there's no money to.
When they talk about this being the worst economic position since the end of WW2 what they mean is the UK during peace time is already at a point right now similar to the bankruptcy it suffered by the end of WW2. It simply couldn't afford any kind of defence let alone offence right now.
You don't bite the hand that feeds you, particularly when you don't have an alternative already in place. The sanctions need to be dropped if for not other reason, for mere self preservation.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GailBecker-MSED-CM-Author World history? 🤦🤦🤣
Man, imagine being so empty headed that you not only lie about your profession in some kind of misguided call to authority, but you choose one that isn't actually relevant, a subject authority or even slightly believable.
Let me clue you in here. People who genuinely study world history, don't flap delusions about a storybook character. Because people who genuinely understand world history know there was never any such person in reality. People who genuinely study world history understand the difference between real, and fiction. And they can discern propaganda.
We know plenty about you, you've shown us first hand. We needed only listen.
We know you're insecure about your beliefs. So much so that you need to proselytize in the same way a smoker needs others to smoke with them for validation.
We know you have delusional thinking.
That you're willing to lie about yourself to try to "win" some kind of muddled interaction with complete strangers on the internet.
We know that you have absolutely no understanding of what's happening in the Donbas.
We also know that in a desperate attempt to try to get back some of your lost credibility, your likely next comment will contain stuff you just did a web search for, maybe even direct quotes but more likely you'll try to pass it off as knowledge you already had.
And now thanks to your child like lie, that it's likely you are immature and uneducated. That provides a high likelihood you are 25 or under, but leaves potential for you to be older and just a loser.
Either way, my original comment stands as does my second. I hope you get the mental health interventions that you so obviously require. Good day.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Texarmageddon I'm sorry mate but the response you provided appears implausible. To be clear, you are now arguing against universal healthcare on the basis that a future government may mismanage the economy. This argument comes across as if it were intended as a joke. Whilst I acknowledge this may indeed be the case, I have no concrete evidence for it and thus I will respond in good faith as if you are serious until such time as you should indicate otherwise.
Instances of financial mismanagement are not exclusive to government sectors, as there exists compelling evidence of collusion and financial misfeasance perpetrated by private entities within the current healthcare system of the US. Moreover, applying your same line of reasoning against universal healthcare could lead to questioning the viability of various other essential government services. This includes law enforcement at all levels, fire departments, transportation infrastructure such as highways and roads, public schools and government-operated educational institutions, licensing and registration processes, permits, marriages, defense forces, and numerous other services provided by government entities including governments themselves. Notably, recent years have witnessed instances of governments defunding the police, which, following the logic you have presented against universal healthcare, could be interpreted as a call for the complete withdrawal of the government from policing affairs. In light of these arguments, it becomes challenging to regard your perspective with the seriousness such a discussion demands.
As previously mentioned, the current economic mismanagement observed in the UK, inevitably has widespread implications that extend beyond the realm of universal healthcare. It is important to recognise that the consequences of such mismanagement permeate various sectors of the economy, impacting the entirety of the nation's economic landscape, including private industry, rather than being limited solely to the domain of healthcare. Arguing this as cause to not proceed forth with universal healthcare is not a valid logical argument. It is in fact a logical fallacy.
Undoubtedly, the implementation of universal healthcare produces substantial economic advantages for an economy, surpassing the realm of mere compassion. By providing comprehensive healthcare services, including preventive medicine, to all individuals irrespective of their economic status or ability to pay at the point of care, there is a notable reduction in the average number of sick days taken across the economy, leading to heightened productivity. The provision of universal healthcare ensures that workers who experience illness or injury can return to work more swiftly, on average. Without the burden of ongoing medical bills, thereby alleviating stress levels, and expediting their reintegration into high productivity activities. Consequently, this increased efficiency contributes to a bolstering of the GDP.
Moreover, universal healthcare plays a pivotal role in mitigating the risk of temporary injuries transforming into permanent disabilities, primarily due to the ease and promptness of access to high-quality healthcare services. This, in turn, translates into substantial budgetary savings by reducing the necessity for disability payments and fostering higher rates of workforce participation. Additionally, the availability of adequate mental health services through universal healthcare enables the early detection and treatment of mental illnesses, thereby resulting in a reduction in crime rates, instances of homelessness, and the associated productivity costs linked to mass sh○○tings. Furthermore, the diminished occurrence of these societal challenges leads to a decrease in prison populations and the costs involved. Collectively, these preventive care measures generate significant monetary savings for the economy.
Universal healthcare has garnered bipartisan federal backing in the United States for a minimum of seven decades. This is further exemplified by the fact that every developed economy, with the exception of the United States, has embraced the implementation of a universal healthcare system. The precise configuration and competitive landscape of such a universal healthcare system, should it be adopted in the United States, lies exclusively with the legislature. Regardless of the system's configuration, it is intrinsic to human-designed systems to encounter certain challenges. This is a matter that necessitates political negotiation and should not serve as an argument against its implementation. It is imperative to acknowledge that challenges exist within every healthcare system, regardless of whether it is government-administered or facilitated through private capital.
I would implore you to consider your position before you respond in favour of private industry controlling everything with no government structures. Such an response would only serve to further diminish your credibility and it is imperative to consider the inherent contradiction within such a proposition. Comprehension of the compelling rationale behind the absence of "pure capitalism" in any nation across the globe is a critical contextualisation. As I trust you are already aware, the United States operates as a mixed economy, which amalgamates elements of private enterprise and governmental involvement to foster a balanced economic system. The same occurs across the developed world.
At times, elected officials may exhibit ineptitude in their roles, and in some instances, they can establish governing bodies that inadvertently disrupt the economy. Nevertheless, a noteworthy aspect of this scenario lies in the fact that the electorate retains the ability to exercise alternatives should such circumstances arise. The mechanism of recall presents itself as a viable option, and in the event that it fails to materialize, the electorate can exercise their democratic right to vote these officials out of office during the subsequent election cycle. It is crucial to acknowledge that the initial selection of individuals for public office rests largely at the discretion of the electorate, thereby underscoring their responsibility as citizens to refrain from supporting individuals who demonstrate incompetence.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Why is this focused only on women? The majority of stop and searches result in no further action regardless of gender. Similarly, the majority of strip searches result in not further action regardless of gender.
Why try to make this about gender? If you consider what a stop and search is used for, it makes complete sense that most will result in no further action. If you consider where and when strip searches are used, it likewise makes complete sense most wouldn't go any further.
Now what happens to law & order if police don't carry out such searches? Will you be reporting on the rise in violence, in weapons, in drugs, and blaming police?
Two women performed the strip search discussed in this report. It wasn't sexual for them, it's outright absurd to characterise it as "sexual violence". Yes, part of a strip search includes making sure you haven't hidden things, that's the point of a strip search. More happened to have her searched than giving a child a business card.
Reports like this one are actively contributing to the division and downfall of society. Why do you want that channel 4? Or can you just not see the forest for the trees
Edit: 47% were black. So, less than half.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shavkatpanda Nope.
What's happening in Myanmar isn't at all in the scope of what the UN or any of it's subcommittees do. The UN is simply a forum, a place for nations to talk, find common ground and negotiate.
The UN has an explicit non interference chapter in its charter. Countries are sovereign territories, they get to do whatever they want domestically, however they want.
That's why Myanmar has been doing this stuff since 1959, it's why the DPRK exists, it's why South America, Africa and parts of South Asia are* unstable, it's why China can have concentration camps, it's why the USA could have 160 days* of violent riots, it's why there are millions of unsettled refugees around the world and it's why the middle east is such a mess.
No one gets to tell any country how to treat it's people, how it should govern itself or by who, or any of that stuff. It's all domestic politics.
The protesters have no chance of success, they need to go home
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sucram1018 That is completely false. Vaccination absolutely protects you. Your problem is that you don't understand how vaccines work.
None of the regular schedule vaccines stop the spread of their target pathogen. Not any of the vaccines in MMR, not the polio vaccine, not varicella, not hooping cough.
All they do is prime your immune system to actively look for their target pathogen so that it can be destroyed through immune response before it has a chance to take hold in your body.
All boosters do is remind your immune system that it's supposed to be actively looking for the target pathogen.
If you have a large enough group of unvaccinated people, then the target pathogen (in this case SARS-CoV-2) is able to turn those people into reservoirs. That is, the pathogen replicates in the unvaccinated host and is able to spread around infecting lots of people.
That's why you've heard a lot from different governments about their goal vaccination percentages. Not all people are eligible to be vaccinated. Children under 12 for now, and under 5 for some time to come for example. People with some types of immunosuppressive disorders, or particular illness also can't be vaccinated. That leaves these cohorts (groups) vulnerable to infection.
For that reason we need enough people vaccinated so that the pathogen does not have the ability to get a foothold in the community and spread around. It helps protect the vulnerable who aren't able to get vaccinated.
Think of it like a rainy day in a crowded outdoor space. If only a few people have umbrellas, lots of people are going to get wet, and sometimes the water will splash off those without umbrellas onto those with umbrellas.
If you have 70% of people with umbrellas in the same space 30% of people will still get wet and some of that water will splash onto people with umbrellas.
If you have 95% of people in the same space holding umbrellas, there's so many umbrellas that the 5% who don't or can't have one can still walk along under everyone else's umbrellas and not get wet either. No one gets wet and there's no side splash because there's so many umbrellas that you've created a shield against the rain.
That's the same concept behind vaccination. The more people who get vaccinated the better protected the community is, but they don't become their most effective until you get the right amount of people vaccinated.
For coronaviruses like sars, mers and SARS-CoV-2 that magic number is 95% vaccination. Once you get there you eliminate the pathogen from your community because it can't create a reservoir and dies out.
I understand that you're afraid, but there really truly is nothing to be afraid of. There aren't any conspiracies going on, no one is trying to harm you, the vaccines aren't experimental (in fact the platform AstraZeneca is built on is 20 years old).
All medicines carry some risks with them. AstraZeneca is 100x less likely to have a serious side effect than common medicines like the oral female contraceptive.
You're 2500% more likely to be injured in a car accident to or from getting vaccinated, than you are to develop any kind of serious side effect from vaccination.
I hope you do your duty not just to your community, or country but to the species by getting vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@julioareck Please don't put words in my mouth then misrepresent the truth. There are 215 countries in the world, of those only 15 recognise Taiwan, none of the are western nations or part of the western alliance, all of them are neighbouring micronations who are trading recognition of Taiwan for recognition of their states.
Taiwan has nothing to do with the recent military build up in China over the last 2 decades. It's ironic that in your own comment you contradict yourself, China has indeed been talking about reunification of Formosa (Taiwan) by force since 1949. It has been the case that the PRC always held the capacity to take it by force if desired. It didn't need a military build up for that.
The CCP has been very clear in directly telling the world what the military build up is about. It's about surpassing the west, to become a global military power and the "superpower of superpowers". Period. China wants to expand, the CCP under Xi (and let's be clear even without him now) see a vision of China returning to the position of global power it held 4000 years ago.
It's why they're on the BRI, it's why they're fighting for the SCS on the basis of the 9 points system literally from 4000 years ago, it's why they're strategically partnering in African, South Asian and European nations it once held power over. It's the point of it following the colonial style debt trap playbook.
China has been very clear, they want Mandarin to displace English as the dominant language of the world by 2040. They have sown themselves into every supply chain for every industry, everywhere and they have nationals they can leverage and exploit en masse through nationalism or blackmail in every western country.
The Taiwan Relations Act (1979) does not in any way require, obligate or ensure military assistance from yankville to Taiwan in the event of a military conflict, including a forcible reunification by the mainland. There is not a single line in the act which does such a thing, it merely leaves it an open option should an administration decide to.
Successive administrations, including the current one have been purposefully ambiguous, however their actions tell us they aren't going to spark a world war over Taiwan. It objectively is just not that important a strategic or national interest for yankville or it's allies to fight over. Period.
Indeed there is more to gain out of not intervening, because if you just let China do what it wants to an island already determined by the UN to belong to China, then it's very unlikely you'll see trade & supply chain disruption.
The de facto relations articles in the act relate only to yankville being able to talk with the ROC and more importantly, sell them stuff without needing CCP approval. All purchases from Taiwan made goods occur through the Chinese mainland it's a practical measure for sales and yankville has always been clear that's entirely what it is about. It has always been clear it isn't about any kind of support for the ROC.
Yankville is continuing to be clear to both sides that it absolutely does not support Taiwanese independence.
No one is going to fight for the ROC other than the ROC. And that's always been the case. The future for Taiwan is undeniably similar to Hong Kong. Once an economic powerhouse, all the mechanisms will be pulled into the mainland to consolidate power.
4
-
4
-
@主人-v9j 🤦
Roflmao. There it is, finally the ROC line re-emerges. You can't fly a flag or go to the Olympics as a separate nation because you aren't one. There have been several UN rulings on this, Taiwan is not an independent country
I'm sorry that upsets you. I'm sorry you wish it was different. But that's how it is, Taiwan is officially part of China, end of story. There is zero chance of Taiwanese independence.
The indigenous peoples of Taiwan aren't there, and your recount of history is disingenuous. The ROC are all Chinese. You are Chinese. You live in an autonomous region of China.
The west aren't going to stop trade with the critical lynchpin to the global supply chain, and make their countries poorer and their citizens lives worse over Taiwan lol.
It would be a violation of WTO rules anyway.
That's not hypocrisy (or irony, and I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word), no one ever said we were going to act in your defence. Indeed I keep telling you we're not going to. Talk and action are different things. The west will talk and hope for you, but we will not act. The action is 100% on you.
That you won't be able to withstand an full force by the mainland tells you everything you need to know about the fate of Taiwan. The ROC line has become ridiculous at this point. It's been 76 years, the PRC won move on.
4
-
@主人-v9j Did you know when the ROC lost to the PRC in the civil war they were superceded at the UN? There was a special tribunal and everything.
Your argument about Yankville is ridiculous. Yankville fought a war (and won) to get independence. They fought the war themselves. They've won the right to be independent, well, kind of independent they're still controlled by the UK under the 5 eyes agreement. It's also important to understand that the US war of independence only impacted some states, others joined the union by other means because they were never under British control.
Taiwan doesn't have diplomatic relations, get real. I haven't "been fooled" that's just the reality of what Taiwan is. Taiwan is an autonomous region of China, do you understand what autonomous means? Hong Kong is likewise another autonomous region of China.
But let's step away from China to illustrate an autonomous state. New Caledonia is an autonomous region of France. It's in the Pacific Ocean thousands of kilometres away from France. It has it's own Congress, it's own currency, it's own version of French, it's a very different lifestyle to France... And yet it remains part of France. It is French territory, owned by France.
Taiwan is like New Caledonia. It's owned by China, the world recognises that ownership, but China has just let Taiwan do as it will for awhile. Now China has decided it wants a bit more control.
To take this autonomy discussion a little further think of it like this. You can't buy a building in Taiwan, fill it with your mates, work out between you all a new name for a currency that will be used inside the building, decide some of the residents will be responsible for security, elect one resident to be in charge and call yourselves an independent country.
The critical steps to independence are
1. Official acceptance of secession by the owning nation state
2. International recognition through the UN
Taiwan has neither.
This ROC line of "oh you just don't understand" doesn't work. We understand perfectly well, telling us we don't because you don't like reality is a fools argument.
There is no amount of "what abouts" that will change the reality. The UN recognises the PRC and does not recognise the ROC. Given the rise of the PRC into a superpower, it's extremely unlikely the UN will ever recognise the ROC as independent unless the PRC wants it to happen.
You have not presented an actual argument, which is the problem the ROC has always had when presenting it's case to the UN and why the UN never sided with the ROC. And the reason you're unable to mount an actual argument is because there isn't one.
Again, the ROC lost the war, you're part of the PRC now like it or not. No amount of words will change that reality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@f.m.m6706 You guessed wrong. But I'd like to point out firstly that the youngest boomer is 62 and it's quite poorly thought out to point to the inexperience of youth and belittle those with experience and knowledge in the same comment.
Also, you're not meant to be doing anything, least of all holding optimise for the future. You think children in the DRC, in Chile, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, in Myanmar and Palestine don't wish for something to be optimistic about? That you even said something like that is a demonstration of just how out of touch with reality and how big a spoilt brat you are.
Especially when pre-pandemic youth were always stuck in their smartphones. When they'd video call instead of hanging out. When they'd text instead of talking face to face or on the phone. But now they're mandated to do what they already were it's suddenly the worst thing ever. lol.
The pandemic is barely 18 months old with an end in sight for developed countries. Western youth aren't missing out on any ground breaking part of their lives in such a short period. Further still, children who have "never known anything but the pandemic" are only at most 18 months old, will have mostly been home anyway, and won't have any memory of the pandemic.
No one owes you literally anything, nothing at all is guaranteed, ever. No matter how much you plan at any moment your entire life can be turned upside down, completely out of your control. You make the most of what you've got, compete as best as you can, never stop pushing yourself and that's all you can do.
Try thinking outside of yourself for once, you're not that important
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Seramics I love that there's all these fanboys like you who have literally no clue what they're talking about.
Hydrogen vehicles are electric vehicles, that's what the EV in H-FCEV stands for. They utilise hydrogen in a reverse electrolysis reaction to create electricity with water and oxygen as the only by-product.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Hydrogen electrolysis, that is the production of green hydrogen from solar electricity, is an incredibly simple process on a small single user scale. So again, assuming you knew what you were doing, followed the correct safety protocols and it was legal in your jurisdiction one could absolutely produce hydrogen on site at their house.
Perhaps more importantly however industrial scale hydrogen production (which has been going for 25 years, and is distributed in the same trucks that transport petrol) will rid the world of OPECs grip and allow every country to become energy independent.
Battery electric leaves countries reliant on producers of rare earth minerals such as lithium, which mind you also create toxic dead zones when mined and refined.
Green hydrogen and H-FCEV adds only solar panels to the generation and waste network. That's it, just solar panels that were already planned to go into service anyway. Everything else utilises existing infrastructure with only a minor adjustment to petrol pumps. Hydrogen is dramatically cheaper at the pump than petrol.
Battery electric on the other hand adds tons more copper to distribute power (because we're not talking about AC wall power here), billions of tons more rare earths and an equal amount of dead batteries that can't be recycled and end up in landfill leaking toxic chemicals into the water table, because replacing batteries in EVs becomes more expensive than the vehicle is worth after 5-10 years you also add millions more vehicles to junk yards every year as e-waste. They require special chargers to be installed and the phase out (landfill) of current infrastructure.
Let's also not forget that battery electric means the loss of jobs, where hydrogen retains current jobs and adds more.
Distribution of hydrogen is not at all difficult and as previously mentioned is done in the same ships & trucks that currently transport petrol and LPG. As those ships & trucks transition to H-FCEV (already occuring) the distribution network becomes a zero emissions network.
Conventional vehicles can even be readily and cost effectively retrofitted for H-FCEV meaning you don't necessarily have to buy a new vehicle in order to transition from petrol to hydrogen.
If you're looking at this from an economic perspective, the offset of running costs does not make up for the sharp depreciation schedule and shortened lifespan of the vehicle. Let's say you only buy brand new and routinely only keep your vehicles for 2 years. On the cheaper side of battery electric you've used up half (50%) the vehicles lifespan. If you go high end, you've used 1/5th the lifespan, lose right to repair so paid significantly more in maintenance during that period. Either way after that 2 years your depreciation is twice that of a conventional vehicle and 4 times that of a H-FCEV. You're losing money on battery electric and polluting the planet whilst doing it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Mephy0712 Nothing was being explained when he was waffling, that's the point. He was just deflecting, he didn't want to explain because the actual answers aren't pleasant.
The actual questions did not have complex answers. Here's the answers to his questions
Nordstrom 2 costs less to Germany to complete and never use, than it does to pause, halt to terminate. If they pause, halt or terminate it German taxpayers owe billions to Russia and to construction partners.
The existence of such a contract creates an environment where Russia is able to influence German domestic and foreign policy.
On the basis of that he would like to stop talking about halting Nordstrom 2 and talk about whether they'll ever use it or not instead, and not talk about the influence Russia has on German politics.
When asked about energy security for Europe if Russia cuts off supply. He said that by relying more on Russia for supply and connecting all of europe to that supply through a couple of pipelines from Russia, then the energy supply is somehow going to be more secure.
When asked about using Nordstrom to influence Russia on human rights he said it is important to decouple trade and human rights because trade can't influence human rights anyway. When asked about China he said it's important to couple trade and human rights because obviously those things go together and it will clearly help influence things.
In other words what he's saying is, yes, Germany will absolutely put trade/business deals above human rights and will say whatever it has to in order to justify that.
What he's also saying is that the USA has been run around complaining about this country or that country as a sales tactic for their own products. The USA would like Nordstrom 2 to halt not because of genuine concern over human rights, but because they have millions of tonnes of natural gas from fracking they want to unload somewhere. The USA aren't talking about China human rights out of genuine concern but because they want those trade contracts signed with US companies instead.
There you go, that was essentially the entire interview, most of it was the minister trying to deflect from those things.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rawmeseesoundsavvvy170 What an utter load of nonsense. IDs aren't free anywhere, ANYWHERE, but requiring an ID to vote is normal the democratic world over.
It doesn't suppress voting and you know it.
They're not free in Australia, they're several hundred dollars but it's also a crime to not have an ID. And there's good reason for that, you need to be easily identified in society regularly.
You need an ID to do most things in society.
To open a bank account,
To enrol in school,
To rent/buy a house,
To rent/buy a vehicle,
To buy alcohol or tobacco,
To drive a vehicle,
To apply for social welfare,
To go to the hospital,
To interact with police,
To get on a plane
To get married
To rent a hotel room
To buy a mobile phone
To get a permit for a rally / protest
To purchase pseudoephedrine based medicines
To donate blood
To get a camping permit or hold a hunting/fishing licence
You need it for all of those things and so many more but, your argument is they aren't free so they shouldn't be used to stop fraud in voting because you want to say something racist about non-whites ability to afford or possess an ID.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any group of people that lack IDs they're so heavily required in society. This is you grasping at straws.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The UN does NOT exist to prevent domestic problems. The UN does NOT exist to end poverty although it's outreach program UNICEF provides plenty of aid around the world.
The UN is a general assembly and a few hundred subcommittee forums. It's just a place where countries come to talk to one another and try to find common ground.
It was created to promote international peace through dialogue. That is to prevent war between countries, particularly to prevent another world war.
The main thing the UN discusses is trade. Greater, and more open trade leads to interconnected partnerships that create a resilience against wars.
The UN is not a world government, nor are they a world police. The UN does not interfere in domestic issues until requested to do so by the nation state in question. The UN Charter is explicit about non-interference.
The UN is largely successful at what it is actually for. Since it's inception, there have been no world wars, the number of military conflicts around the world has significantly decreased to historically peaceful levels, international cooperation is higher than ever before in history and trade is freer than ever before.
The real question you have to ask yourself is, why do you knee jerk in reaction to a propaganda piece designed to prime you for justification of the US remaining in Afghanistan. The reality is the US made a ceasefire deal with the Taliban based on a promise they'd be out by May 1. The Taliban warned if they didn't keep their promise the ceasefire would end. The USA didn't keep their promise, but the Taliban kept theirs.
The US military can rapidly move active bases from one part of the globe to another within hours during conflict, but they expect everyone to believe it takes a year to pack up everything and leave Afghanistan. Get real.
By 11 September we'll see increased troop numbers, not a withdrawal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Not really @ YouTube is watching YouToo, no.
People who have been radicalised into an extreme ideology are more confrontational, less tolerant, more tribalistic, and more prone to externalisation.
When we're talking about "left wing" and "right wing" what we're talking about in their pure form is extremist ideology surrounding politics. The above explanation applies equally to both "wings".
Imagine a straight line. On the very end of the left side of the line we put the extreme left wing.
On the very end of the right side of the line we put the extreme right wing.
In the very middle of the line we put centrists.
Now we mark out the quarter point of the line on either side of centre. In the quarter closer to centre we place the centre (moderate) left or right depending on what side of the middle they're on.
On the quarter closer to the ends we put the left and right wing relative to their side.
What should become immediately apparent is there is a range for what counts as moderate, left or right wing, that it isn't a set thing but more how much of an extreme position you have adopted.
Now we take our straight line and we curve it into a perfect circle. What should now be apparent is that left and right extremism is the same thing with a different name and a different route to getting there.
Again the more extreme ideas one adopts, the more tribalism takes hold. Racism is merely a symptom of tribalism, it's a hardwired response to be defensive and aggressive towards anyone new to the tribe particularly if they are different in some way.
During times of crisis such as chronic economic hardship, like that seen in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century you see more people shifting towards extreme ideologies because it promises comfort and easy solutions by blaming the crisis on newcomers such as people with different ethnicity, religious belief, or those who are perceived as opposing the ideology (which can include law enforcement).
To answer OPs question with more detail, the AfD have struggled internally since their inception on where in that range of centre right, ring wing and extreme right they want to sit. There has been a growing movement inside the AfD away from moderates and conservatives, towards supporting the extreme right.
I hope that answers your question to me. If not, let me know and I'm happy to clarify.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When Joe says he just puts out a podcast and if people watch it great, that he's not competing or manipulating, he isn't being truthful. He might not be consciously lying, but his statement is false.
Google has always been an advertising company. Facebook converted into an advertising company to make money. So did twitter. But we've had advertising as long as we've had capitalism. At it's root the point of advertising is to draw attention and manipulate.
No one would watch the Joe Rogan Experience if we didn't know it existed. The podcast is successful because it is put in front of as many eyeballs as possible. Open the Apple Podcast app, see how visible this podcast is? Do you think the listens would be in the same realm if it was buried somewhere amongst the riff-raff?
I'm sure if Joe asked apple nicely to take the podcast off the front page they would. Give it a go for a month, see how it effects downloads.
By being on the front page, served up easily and pushed in everyone's face in a blanket campaign, the Joe Rogan Experience podcast IS manipulating people into listening.
When you write your titles and create compelling thumbnails on YouTube, the Joe Rogan Experience podcast is manipulating CTR.
Get real Joe, you're playing the same game as everyone else. Moreso, because you're in entertainment. The difference is Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter have put themselves in a position where they are up the top of the pile.
Let's not minimise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I know this video was 5 years ago now, and I'm unsure if you've considered this element of Dr Raymond Cocteau in the intervening years, but listening through the entire video you don't seem to have mentioned it. Indeed you seem to say the counter.
Dr Cocteau does not come from government or the political class. He comes from the private, academic class as a saviour from a world were the political class had failed. He runs Sans Angeles as a corporation. The video call board meeting isn't with politicians, it's with the heads of private industry. It's set design is such as to give the impression of a board meeting, not one of cabinet.
The sleek metalic design of the video monitors clearly calls to robocops OCP.
In Dr Cocteau the film appears to be saying that tyranny does not come from the political class whose continued livelihood is irrevocably linked to the pleasing of their citizenry. But instead from the elites who think themselves too wise, and stand ready to take control should we ask them to. Dr Cocteau did not take San Angeles by force, the people asked him to become their temporary dictator in an emergency situation and he simply never gave up control.
Like all dictators he is propped up by the support of the other elites. Thus the board, and the rise of pizza hut/taco bell from the restaurant wars.
Perhaps more subtly, Dr Cocteau is a warning about trusting the man who spends his livelihood thinking (academics, prisoners, the unemployed) of the ideal with too much power. That seems to have some merit, afterall how were facism, socialism and communism created in the first place.
There is also some subtly with the casting. All of the elites are white. Everyone with power is male. There are a few black surface dwellers, like Zachary Lamb, but they behave subservient to the whites. Alfredo Garcia, the only Hispanic surface dweller we ever see, is the most rigid in his deployment of the rules.
The scraps below ground on the other hand are ethnically diverse. When Garcia converts to the scraps, he goes from his strict dress from the surface world, to attire which is essential a spaghetti western characture of mexicans having found his people. To me this speaks of the messiness of what real inclusivity looks like. That it is rough, and uncomtrolled. In the scene where Spartan calls for balance between Cheif Earle and Friendly, we see a more diverse cast behind Chief Earle and an all white cast behind Edger Friendly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mate you have no clue what you are talking about. Ukraine isn't fighting for freedom, do you even understand what happened in the 2014 coup? Do you understand what's been happening for the last 8 years?
The civilians in the Donbas have been fighting, physically, for their freedom since the coup.
The Ukrainian military have been using trench warfare on these civilians the entire time. Shelling them, shooting at them. This has been covered extensively in the media over that time, it's not something that's suddenly being said. This channel has covered it, so have DW, BBC & France24. They've shown the terrified civilians being harassed by the Ukrainian military.
Ukraine sent 50K troops into the region last March by presidential decree. That was just 7 weeks after Biden took office. Russia matched them and waved a big stick telling them not to invade the Donbas. Zelenskyy tried going on a scare campaign across Europe that failed because no one brought his lie that Russia was a threat to Europe. The end of April came the weather changed and became unsuitable for a military campaign so both sides stood down.
This year Ukraine more than doubled the troops to the Russian border and Donbas region. Russia again matched them and shook a stick, don't invade the Donbas. And here we find ourselves.
The people of the Donbas want independence because the coup removed elected politicians and installed organised crime into political leadership. It's all about oil & gas, Zelenskyy has a large personal stake, so does Biden from yankville. The Donbas region is oil & gas rich.
This is about corruption, greed and crime. Biden and Zelenskyy want their money and they don't care who has to die or be displayed for them to get it. We're talking hundreds of billions annually here. That's what this is about
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bobafett5757 Taiwan is not governed by a democratic government. It has an administrative council the same as Hong Kong and a certain amount of autonomy, but it still answers wholly to Beijing. It still takes orders from Beijing, and all trade from Taiwan must go through mainland China as a matter of law.
Your question is like asking why Texas has a state government if it's part of yankville.
The one China policy is a sovereign framework supported by the UN, including countries like yankville, the UK and China. Taiwan, or as it's actually called Formosa, is an island chain inside internationally designated Chinese waters.
Furthermore, Taiwan is not as democratic as you appear to want to believe. The cruelty of past Taiwanese governments would make any SJWs skin crawl. They hide it now as part of their rebranding campaign to the west which saw the name change to Taiwan, the illusion of democracy, the forced denial of it's inhabitants ancestry, etc.
Independence is all about the civil war. But you know that already Bobba Fett because we've already had this conversation in the past. I already know the mental backflips you're going to make so don't bother.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Correct. However, it's important to understand that when we vote blindly for a party over the actual individual and their personal platform, we significantly increase the likelihood for corruption. That's what the saying about absolute power and corruption is talking about. When we vote blindly for a party, we vote for a party to have absolute power.
The system isn't designed to work that way. The system is designed to work on individual candidates in electorates. Just because someone is a candidate endorsed by a party doesn't mean they agree to all of the party platforms, they're still individuals, they still hold their own minds.
But everyone wants to corrupt a system to lazily vote for brands and party leaders instead of who will represent their electorate specifically the best. I bet most of you don't even know who your local member is without looking it up, let alone the platform they stand on. Yet I'm sure some of you mindlessly voted for them based on the brand name endorsing them. I'm also sure some of you complaining didn't even vote at all.
You can't complain about corruption, nor claim to be surprised by it, if it comes as a result of your own lack of appropriate engagement with the system. At the next election, actually get to know the candidates not just for major parties but minor parties and independents too. Yes, that takes effort on your part.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bobiel9048 It absolutely matters, because there is larger context surrounding the quote. But perhaps more importantly, Butler made the statement before Moreno was even born. He was amongst the last generation to live free. Monero didn't know what that was like. Neither do you or I. We can try to imagine, but it can only be framed by looking through their eyes.
It's only through them that we can understand what was lost, how and why. Without understanding those things, we can never hope to get it back. Indeed, without such understanding we can only hope to get a flimsy parody of what once was. A new trap. Butler wasn't alone. There were many in his generation trying to combat the fall of freedom. Some through fiction, some through music, some through public messaging campaigns and some like the good general by taking the fight directly to the enemy of freedom. And yet, despite the blanketing of such information, freedom was still lost. Rest on that for a moment before you celebrate what Trump is doing too much. It's a drop in an ocean. The USA doesn't even have full control of its own military.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
OP is correct that many countries have been severely limited their monitoring programs. Pandemic level monitoring programs do have to wind down at some point though, they cost taxpayers an unsustainable amount to run. Post max vaccination is a good time for that to occur.
That however does not mean there are NO monitoring programs. Hospitals still submit reports, and wastewater is still being screened. This allows for authorities to provide mass screening to identify unexpected increase in cases via financially responsible means. These systems identify need and if ever appropriate PRC screening can be rapidly deployed.
Don't think just because you no longer report that authorities have taken their eyes off the ball. Individual case numbers have become less relevant now, it's hospitalisation numbers and deaths that matter most.
By WHO definition
A pandemic is a situation where a pathogen is spreading at an exponential rate across multiple (or all) countries.
Epidemic is the same thing but confined to a single country or region.
Endemic means the spread of a pathogen is somewhat stable and predictable, and confined to a region. That region can of course be global.
Neither of these terms say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT RISK they are only epidemiological terms to discuss the nature of spread. SARS-COV-2 changing categorisation from pandemic to endemic or vice versa, does not make it any more or less dangerous.
There is no natural immunity. I've seen a few comments to that effect in this thread, they are false. Vaccination and infection combined does elevate immuno-response however infection alone leaves you completely vulnerable. Furthermore there are a little over half a dozen variants, each one evading the immune system in different ways. We have to be exceptionally clear here that the concept of natural herd immunity is not applicable to SARS-COV-2, we are in this privileged state because of vaccination and vaccination alone.
To that end it's important to understand two things.
(1) Whilst uptake has been high with 3.4 billion doses administered by 28 Nov 2022, sinovax is exceptionally ineffective at just ~37%.
(2) Immunity from vaccination administered in mid 2022 will now be weining leaving communities more exposed.
That means we have a very large population with SARS-COV-2 running like wildfire through the community with a low effective vaccine and weining efficacy across the world. This significantly enhances the likelihood of the emergence of a new variant of interest.
That is to say, of SARS-COV-2 mutating again in perhaps an unplanned direction. So far variants have become less deadly over time as the virus adapts to us, however evolution being what it is there is always the possibility it could rapidly reduce vaccine efficacy or even become more deadly in a single new variant.
That is why countries are closely watching China and some are screening travelers from China. Of course it could continue to mutate towards being less fatal and vaccination will become far less important at that point.
It will however never become a cold. Colds have a specific definition that SARS-COV-2 does not meet. It would be a seasonal respiratory infection.
In all of this it's so called "long CoVID" or post CoVID syndrome that has always posed highest risk and the highest impact to national and global economics. What happens with rates in this cohort is the thing to watch.
Lastly it should be noted that during winter hospitalisations with SARS-COV-2 are expected to rise. That's how respiratory infections work. What matters isn't that hospitalisations are rising at all, but the rate of rise and whether it's in the predicted range.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Setsuna1 It isn't a genuine democracy in any sense, practicing or otherwise. It's a complex dictatorship whereby the Burmese are trying to turn it into a democracy, but it has never actually been one.
I see no issue with my phrasing, it is accurate.
The original point of this thread before it was derailed by someone who didn't know up from down, was that the media have been misrepresenting this as a coup d'etat.
That isn't an argument about semantics, because it doesn't imply the same or similar regardless.
The presentation that Myanmar was somehow a democracy ticking over just fine then randomly the military seized power is a completely false narrative. One can not understand what is actually happening in Myanmar from the coverage by DW and many other western media outlets.
Al Jazeera has a very good introduction explainer video on Myanmar from earlier in the year, perhaps April or May, if you want to get an introduction to the history of Burma/Myanmar. It's only an introduction though and of course all the complex moving parts and historical events can't fit into one short form video.
I have been somewhat careful throughout to refer to the Burmese, as opposed to the general population of Myanmar. That's an important distinction because Myanmar has a variety of ethnic groups, and the reason the military gained control in the first place back in '58 is because the Burmese wanted the military to commit genocide against all other ethnic groups. It's a policy that Aung San Suu Kyi herself supported right up until her latest arrest, where the military were slaughtering the Rohingya by the village full, and carrying out bombing raids on the Karen villages.
The other ethnic groups of Myanmar want different things. Some, like the Karans, want autonomy and secession. Others want various kinds of governance, from religious Emirates to special democracies with ethnic quotas on seats.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EMS It isn't cynical, it's reality. Very much the same as is happening in France right now. Very similar to controversial laws that pass in every western nation. It's an established play.
You want to believe that democracy means you have power all of the time, and that protests have meaning. But they don't. Democracy means you have a voice once every electoral cycle to vote for who you think might be a good representative. If you're wrong you have to wait.
Yes, when representatives take their jobs as representatives seriously protests can change a mind. But only because those minds are actively trying to listen to the people and always were, whilst they also felt free from other pressures to be able to change their minds. Representatives whom feel they know better than the people, &/or representatives whom have other pressures on their decisions don't listen to protest and it's then, a waste of everyone's time. It's when protests turn to violence and riot, because elements of the protest think they're more powerful than reality and they get frustrated they aren't being listened to.
Bibi both believes he knows better, and has other pressures on him. Not least of all self preservation. He's already passed a law that prevents the courts from kicking him out of office when he's found guilty. Now he's trying to rig the game so he isn't found guilty in the first place. That's the ultimate goal here, and he's just told his coalition partners a story on what they can do with those powers. It's self preservation first for Bibi and all the protests in the world won't stop self preservation.
He realistically just had to wait for the protesters and strikers to run out of money and be forced to go back to work out of necessity. Then he can ram the laws through fast and quietly. That's reality.
Any negotiation he actually engages in will be for damage control only. Any concessions he makes will be axillary in nature. He won't compromise on the core pieces that benefit him personally staying in office. He's a criminal actor running riot with a countries political system.
As for how he got back into power. He wasn't voted back in. He made deals with multiple other parties to secure enough seats to get himself back in. He did that too for self preservation, because from opposition he goes to jail.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You have utterly misunderstood both the character and the conditions you speak about. You likewise seem to have missed key scenes in the film that leave nothing open.
Bateman doesn't lack empathy, nor do people with ASPD in general. You can not seriously lie, manipulate, come off as charming nor successfully fit in unless you are intimate with the emotions of others. Empathy is ultimately just the understanding of how ones actions effect others. By definition empathy means
1. The ability to identify with or understand another's situation or feelings: synonym: pity
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.
3. the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person
Jean plays a key role in the film, both demonstrating Patrick's ability to feel empathy when he spares her life twice, and in clinching his murders as being firmly based in reality as she flicks through his daily planner only to discover drawings representing his murders on any given day.
He further demonstrates empathy through his introspective speech dotted throughout the film. One can not identify a lack of self, nor can one be disgusted at themselves and their monstrous actions without the presence of empathy for their victims. Far from failing to feel empathy, it's the ability to use empathy to manipulate the situation in order to succeed at gaining own desires that is the key to ASPD.
That, and the deep seeded insecurities about self worth. Bateman demonstrates these with his obsession over everything from his diet and fitness, to his overreaction to who has the better business card and which table he is seated at. In the world of someone with ASPD everything is viewed through the lens of self. Someone getting a better table or having a better card is a self failure. This is further illustrated in his conversation with the homeless man. Patrick ultimate see's his own fears of failure in the homeless and kills him as if to kill that part of himself.
We hear constantly throughout the film that Patrick views Marcus as a dork, but everyone else, including Marcus views Patrick as a dork. This only feeds Patrick's insecurities, with more people looking down on him the further into his killing spree he descends.
The death of the model corresponds similarly with her looking through him as a generic man that she makes assumptions about, going so far as to only hear what she wants to even when he's saying messed up things to her. He kills her to stop the feeling of insecurity.
American Psycho takes place in New York in the 1980s, in rich apartments where doormen witness crimes every day and are paid to pay no attention. There are real world examples of murders taking place during the 80s whereby the murder did take place across multiple sections of an apartment building.
3
-
lol. That's not how any of that works, and it isn't international law. There is a standardised process for recognising secession at the UN, but there is no right to secede, and every sovereign state has a right over its territory to do with whatever it wishes.
RRT is a theoretical legal framework only, with no consistency of application. It is not a law, it is not binding, and it is never certain whether courts will take it as relevant. It's just legal theory. Even then, RRT is only applicable in the most severe of cases, such as in Donetski and Luhansk, where their people were being murdered by their state, and a permanent member of the UNSC sponsored their secession. But the legality of that is yet to be fully decided.
Greenland do not want true independence. If you just watched the video you're commenting on you just heard from a member of their parliament that they still want Denmark to continue providing education, justice, military, etc to them. What they actually want is jurisdictional autonomy whilst remaining territorially part of Denmark.
They do not want Yankville to own them, they think they might be able to use Yankvilles interest as a bargaining chip with Copenhagen. Completely misjudged the situation. Trump is serious when he talks about using military force to annex Greenland and Panama.
Greenland could not realistically meet to standard necessary for acknowledgement as a nation state in the UN. In the real world, everything is colonialism. That's just the way humanity goes. That's why half of east Africa is at war with each other, to expand territory.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'd like to answer some of the questions asked in this interview from a medical perspective concerned with evidence and not activism.
Dysphoria is not simply feeling uncomfortable; it's not a proverbial thorn in your side. Dysphoria is an extreme sensation that something is immediately and devastatingly wrong, resulting in extreme panic, mental health crisis and very likely self harm without medical intervention. Dysphoria is not trivial, it is a serious mental health issue.
Gender dysphoria is simply dysphoria experienced around ones gender. That is, the profound feeling that something is wrong with ones gender and it must be resolved. It's important to note that gender dysphoria presents in the overwhelming majority of cases as a SYMPTOM to other trauma &/or comorbidities.
This also should address the assertion by the guest surrounding "souls". This concept of "souls" or a consciousness separate from self is not a part of the discussion at large, and is simply a very poor interpretation on behalf of the guest. When they talk about being in the wrong body, they are referring exclusively to their dysphoria. It has nothing to do with "souls".
Gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness for the same reasons all dysphoria are considered as such. These are extreme internalised feelings involving thoughts that do not match reality.
You asked about whether the guest would have "transitions" happening at all. Let me say that credible physicians, surgeons and mental health professionals from allied health, in touch with the genuine evidence from the literature do no consider these things to be treatments at all and would not use them.
Major pharmaceutical manufacturers of "hormone therapies" including "puberty blockers", such as those discussed in this interview DO NOT recommend their use in the treatment of gender dysphoria, or at all in minors. Indeed they actively discourage it.
I think it's also important to understand that the medical establishment has been pushed into this by activists politicising their mental illness.
I think that's the perfect segway into the 64 million dollar question, why is this happening. There is no one single driver, it's a perfect storm of compounding factors. This wouldn't be possible without millennials being brought up wrapped in cotton wool and getting participation trophies.
It wouldn't be possible without the social movements that naturally followed from millennials rebellious and change the world phases of development. It wouldn't be possible without all of those experiences informing middle class millennials into parenthood. It wouldn't be possible without activists linking gender dysphoria so caled "trans" to the gay rights movement and riding the post gay marriage progressive ideological wave.
It wouldn't be possible without activists using force, violence, double speak and intimidation to get their way. It wouldn't be possible without social media, particularly twitter, and the use of automated bots to amplify the voice of the few over the many. It wouldn't be possible without the law being slow to catch up to harassment on social media, and adequately address it criminally. It wouldn't be possible without millennials moving into academic and executive positions.
And none of those things would have been possible without boomers rebelling with their hippie phase, which informed their own political correct movement way of thinking and the raising of kids with that in mind to produce millennials in the first place. But also which polluted their bodies in such a way as from 1979 onwards we get a sudden exponential increase in neurodevelopmental disorders, mood disorders and cognitive impairments from what was previously essentially flat and stable presentation.
The very same kinds of conditions seen most as comorbidities with gender dysphoria. There's more variables in there but that's the essence.
How do you treat gender dysphoria? You treat it by treating the comorbidities, and the dysphoria takes care of itself.
I think it's also important to note for those whom believe this is some kind of conspiracy by the medical establishment to make money, that we have far more lucrative options. No one prints blank scripts for any other medical condition. Some physicians buckle under the pressure of activist intimidation. I don't blame them, and neither should you.
3
-
3
-
Watched the entire video, not once for even a single question or passing observation did this story discuss the implications on inflation if NHS nurses were to be given a 17% pay rise.
The closest this came was a question to Leanne Lewis about whether she recognises that everyone else in the UK also has real wages falling. But no mention that real wages falling is the nature of inflation. It's in a sense what inflation really is, at least as ordinary people experience inflation and importantly you can't simply raise wages to combat that.
Indeed raising wages creates more inflation. More importantly it contributes to structural inflation which is something any economist will tell you is to be avoided. Unions need to settle down, yes times are tough right now and you're going to have to make sacrifices whilst everyone struggles. It's the nature of inflation, but if you start trying to do stupid things like raise wages to combat inflation you just make inflation worse, harder to control (so interest rates go higher) and longer term in the economy.
Not to mention the UK budget is in deficit, there's already cuts on the way to try to balance it, where exactly do union bosses think the government is going to pull £9B from? I don't blame nurses for this for a second, I blame greedy union bosses whom have no understanding of reality let alone what they're doing.
If the NHS nurses alone got a 17% increase, the UK as a whole would be looking at a 1.25% increase in inflation and that could leave millions homeless. I would urge all union members across all sectors to really familiarise themselves with what inflation actually is, what causes it and how industrial action impacts upon it for everyone. Because all the union bosses are looking for a pay rise for themselves so they're all going to go to their members asking if you want to demand one too. This is not the time for industrial action, it's the time for restraint. We must be meager now so we can prosper later, else our children will only know austerity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@monichat 75 years, all there has been is waiting.
It would appear that you are young and filled with undue hope. You may think me cynical, but I know we have been here, precisely here, many times before. What we see is not a single country of note speak out with any prevailing will or confidence in favour of ceasefire let alone the Palestinian cause.
The gulf states could turn off the oil tap and stop this, yet they do not. They've ruled it out completely. Israels neighbours, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, turkyre etc could blockade Israel until they end the blockade if Gaza and yet they do not. Indeed they have ruled it out completely. Turkyre could sweep their troops across the region and wipe away Israel as if it were but a crumb, and yet they do not. They briefly rattled their sabre but have since politely ruled it out.
If these countries, those most invested in Palestine, with the most to lose if Palestine falls, refuse to act what chance do you think there* is for Palestine? Ireland will not act for itself, let alone the wider EU acting. They're too afraid of angering the UK and Yankville.
The UK could end this whole thing with a single phone call, and yet despite 78% of the British public in favour of a permanent ceasefire and holding Israel accountable, the UK government continues to act in accordance with and support of Israel. Yankville is in a similar position to the UK.
A few minor jurisdictions with no real connection saying no and virtue signalling has become the norm to anything of note in geopolitics. It's a tourism ad, little more. We know is they do not change anything, nor do they intend too. When they stand, it makes it less likely not more, that those with actual power will stand in opposition too. It isn't a coincidence they've waited this long to stand up.
This bloodshed will eventually end for a time. Gaza will be smaller, the west bank too. Israel will be larger. Then, be it months or years from now, this same stuff will happen again and you will see the very same people professing to have only just woken up to the reality of Palestine, claiming the same once more.
You are flush with hope because you still believe the lies that you have power and that "good" (whatever that is) triumphs over "evil" (whatever that is too). As you grow, you will see, that is a view wholly disconnected from reality, born out only in fantasy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There are ~4x as many people in the UK as in the Netherlands (total population).
There are an estimated 40K homeless in the Netherlands as of 2022 (0.23% of population).
There are roughly 274K homeless in the UK as of 202, ~7x more than in the Netherlands (0.4% of population).
So for starters we're talking about a scale difference. That's without even taking into account the fact that the UK is bankrupt. The government in the UK simply cannot afford to help the homeless even if they wanted to. As it stands the UK has a shock coming because a government very soon is going to have to choose between cutting services people have become accustomed to receiving or raising taxes significantly. This has to happen soon to solve the UKs insolvency or the value on the pound will crash.
Secondly, the Netherlands have seen a doubling of homelessness in the last 3 years with dutch authorities saying they can't keep up. So whilst they are supposed to provide inloophuis, nachtopvang, kortdurende opvang & in winter winterkouderegeling the demand is overwhelmed and thus they can no longer provide for everyone.
This is the same thing that happened not only in the UK, but every high populated western nation. Tackling homelessness is easier the smaller the population is, the the low the demand for homelessness services. Beyond a certain population/demand point however it becomes increasingly difficult and exponentially costly to meet demand for homelessness services. That's the real people.
We're already starting to see the dutch authorities come to terms with that, as they impose limits on who can access services. In Amsterdam you now need to be homeless for at least 3 months and have no relatives in the city to access homeless services. For those initial 3 months, you're now on your own.
This is putting stress on the Dutch criminal justice system because it's not legal for the homeless to loiter. The same stuff happened in the UK 3 decades ago.
Undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers & tourists can not access homeless services at all.
So, not only is the dutch system crumbling what is happening in the UK on homelessness is educational for everyone in the Netherlands. That's how the Netherlands will be 2 or so decades from now unless population growth is gotten under control.
The problem is population size. Countries start to struggle in consistent and predictable ways after their populations raise above 8-12M inhabitants depending on the size of the inhabitable area.
3
-
@MrSmith_ Are you kidding? There has been a growing budget deficit in the UK for the last 20 years. A budget deficit is where the UK doesn't have enough money to pay all of it's bills, so it has to borrow money to pay them. That deficit has increased 10 fold in the last 20 years to now £500M.
Look through every UK budget for the last 20 years and there you'll find it. It's been all over the news for the last several months. It's a major component in the high inflation being experienced and it's why Tuss' "mini budget" caused a run on the pound and it's why the government CAN'T negotiate with the unions right now even if it wanted to. The UK is bankrupt and it's bankrupt because it's been 30 years of vote for the party who promise the biggest tax cuts so tax revenue has evaporated.
Currently the UK borrows from Peter to pay Paul, or more frequently borrows from Peter, to pay Peter. That's bankrupt.
Neither of the major parties have a publicly stated plan to get out of this mess, both are responsible for it.
InB4 Budget deficits in the short term are fine, when they exist to increase productivity, GDP, growth and currency value. Like when a government goes into deficit for a fixed number of budgets with a solid plan to pay the money back and that money is going to something like say a national infrastructure upgrade that will make businesses across sectors more profitable/productive. Those are good investments that forex traders are happy with. In current government speak "leveling up" (which is a spastic and infantile way of putting it).
20 years of growing deficit just to pay for normal services that don't increase anything and with no way to pay down those loans on the other hand is disastrous for any economy. Forex traders hate that (thus the run) as do foreign investors.
When forex traders and foreign investors start pulling out of your country, the value of your currency decreases rapidly and that's called inflation. Have a look at Lebanon to see what can happen within a few hours when inflation gets into the 13-17% range and investors/forex traders lose all faith that the economy can recover. Yes, that absolutely can happen in the UK and the union strikes are making it far more likely. Everyone in the UK needs to sit down, shut up and accept things are going to be terrible for awhile. At the next election vote for individual members with actual understanding of economics and a solid plan to get the UK out of this mess. Stop voting for parties, that's half the problem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Juergen Aseka Fiat currencies aren't backed by a commodity, of which oil is such a commodity. Instead fiat currencies have their value decided upon by their respective governments and backed only by the size of economic production and the relevant governments ability to pay debt.
Normally governments with fiat currencies work hard on paying their debts, not defaulting, and managing the amount of currency in circulation such that it is smaller than GDP.
Yankville right now has the benefit of the USD also being the dominant reserve currency for trade, including oil. That means if you're in say China and you want to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, you first exchange your yuan into USD, to pay for the oil, then Saudi Arabia exchanges the USD into riyals. Reserve currency is used to standardise value objectively.
That has allowed yankville to do something very stupid for the last 90 years. Print way more money than they make in order to pay down debt.
All that is to say, collapsing the yankville economy is entirely the point of my original comment. It isn't a matter of a maybe, but a definitive immediate result of losing reserve currency status. It would also put an immediate end to all yankville sanctions, and military actions around the world. They simply would no longer be able to pay for any of it.
But the other point is, that an impartial reserve currency made up by a collective and not controlled by any one nation would mean no country has the benefit of reserve currency status and thus no country can corrupt itself in the way of all those who have come before.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@christianlibertarian5488 lol The OECD do NOT rate health insurance. Many OECD countries don't even have health insurance because there is no need under their system. The OECD rate a health system and outcomes across numerous metrics in an annual report. Again, the US is towards the bottom and have been roughly the same position for the last 35 years.
As someone in medicine, I happen to have a subscription to the lancet. It's not surprising though that you make a broad claim, then cite only the publication but not the actual article.
It's likewise quite amusing that you've moved the goal posts from hospitals in general to trying to suggest the US is good at a specific type of care for a specific condition.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this but the US CDC happen to publish annual stats on causes of death, and a quick sheet top 12.
Heart disease is by far the leading cause of death in the US at ~692K, closely followed by cancer with ~602K. CoVID came in third with ~350K deaths and then accidents in general at around ~200K where falls not traffic accidents were the leading type. At ~160K strokes were close behind accidents.
Health outcomes are the leading contributing factor to life expectancy. Perhaps more importantly life expectancy is an average, not a median. A cohort of young drivers dying in traffic accidents does not reduce average life expectancy in any meaningful or statically significant way.
I can see the truth is upsetting to you, but the reality is hospitals in the US are amongst the worst in the developed world. Health outcomes are poor, skills on average are poor, resources are poor. The intent isn't to hurt your feelings, only to describe a fact.
3
-
3
-
@sleepingmorpheus You're looking for an edge case where what I said won't be true. But you haven't found one. Let's go to an extreme, let's say there's a body, bones really, found in a barrel full of acid in the middle of the bush. No suspect. No idea whose remains they are.
The first step is not determining sex. The first step in such an extreme case is taking DNA to compare against the national missing persons and victims system (NMPVS). Sex is not a relevant characteristic in such a comparison.
Forensic odontology is also used if that doesn't garner a match. Ie. They check dental records. Where neither of those are effective, forensic anthropology may be used, however this isn't used as often as you might like to think. There are several on the missing persons registry with no real characteristics listed. Just "unidentified person" or "unidentified victim" as their marker.
Where such an extreme case exists, and some kind of sex characteristic is assigned through forensic anthropology, it has a relatively high rate of failure (ie. Getting it wrong). Because, like all forensics, it's not real science. So the absolute worst case is upon discovering the does identity they'd just update the sex.
Of course in the overwhelming majority of deaths, even involving malicious intent, the person is readily identifiable by people at the scene, neighbours, documents on their person or in their vicinity, finger prints, etc. In all such cases, again the coroner will determine sex based on attire, documentation and what their next of kin has to say.
See, you all want to find some gotcha that will turn this craziness back into making sense. But that's not going to happen. Situations like this don't just happen on their own by chance. People haven't just oopsie daisy lost their minds for a moment on a fad and they'll wake up if only you say the right thing. These kinds of outcomes in society happen only because of willful agendas amongst people with the power to make them come true. It isn't a coincidence that Gillard was the one to push through this change to law. She's not even the only member of Emily's List in parliament. There are many sitting right now, can you guess which ones?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@theoddone887 I don't know where to start with your comment which seems more interested in putting tickets on yourself than dispersing any insight.
Money sitting in a bank doing nothing does lose value at the rate of inflation, but the balance doesn't reduce. A £1 of savings is still a £1. Perhaps more importantly money invested responsibly earns.
Let's put this into perspective, this bloke was 30 in 1987 when the average house in London was ~£55K and he was 40 in 1997 when the average house in London was ~£106K. Let's split the difference and say he purchased a house late for that era in his mid 30s, so he's paying ~£90K for a home. That's not an expensive house, not even in it's time.
If for some reason you can't afford to save, you're living beyond your means. It's your responsibility to solve that by reducing expenses and increasing income. We know based on the interview though he works a union trades job and thus have an approximation of his income based on pay scales. We know he wasn't on a low income, we know he made a reasonable amount that would allow someone to save.
There is no need to be exceptional to save. There is no need to be exceptional to invest. There is no need to be exceptional to have an emergency fund, to have a retirement fund and to have an investment fund. He has none of those, and he has them as a direct result of being reckless with his finances.
Then he made the horrendous decision at what, 55, to have a child. At 55 and knowing he had no money saved and an uncertain financial future. He knew where pensions were a decade ago, they were just a much not livable then and in decline because of the aging population. Decided to have a kid with all of those expenses anyway.
That's his poor life choices.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Piers wants to pretend he's giving time to Palestinian voices, but what he's really doing is trying to control the narrative. Every one of these interviews is a sham.
It's always trying to push the guest down a narrow passage of condemning Hamas, removing Hamas, cowtowing to Israel and allowing themselves to be erased. Every one of these interviews tries to paint the guest into an intellectual corner in order to pretend that anything Israel is doing is justified. It's nonsense.
Piers doesn't even appear to understand that Gaza is not the whole of Palestine. That the west bank has no Hamas and no affiliation there with.
Listen carefully, the UN secretary general was clear clarifying that 7 October did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred in the context of defensive retaliation against DAILY israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and within Jerusalem. An aggressor by definition can never be defending itself and Israel is the aggressor. Get real.
The fact of the matter is whether this is a genocide or not is not a matter of opinion. Israels actions meet EVERY criteria under international law for genocide. Where to count they only have to satisfy two plus intent, Israel satisfys ALL of them including intent*. The UN secretary general and the ICJ BOTH agree that this is probably genocide.
Hamas is not one thing. It's ordinary people under occupation who stand up to their oppressors, against their attackers. A subsection of Hamas saying they would like to wipe israel away is not genocide. Genocide requires intention, but it also requires specific action. Action Hamas as in no position to EVER commit. EVER. By the time a peace process works out a Palestinian state, there will be no more Hamas because there will be no oppressor to fight and those feelings towards Israel will subside. To suggest Israel is under any threat of genocide is farcical clap-trap. Pure fantasy to justify actual genocide.
Stop excusing zionists their racial supremacist nonsense. Everything israel is doing is illegal. Not just in the last 3 weeks, for DECADES. Racially motivated detention, including 50% children. Settling on Palestinian land. Random attacks and massacres by israeli settlers who go without any consequence. Murder of Palestinians at crossings inside their own walls. The entire occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The decades long blockade of Gaza. The list goes on.
If french people crossed the channel without visas, holding guns and started shooting at brits, murdering them in their homes, chasing the survivors off then claiming the land, houses and possessions as their own, how would you feel? If some brits shot back would they be terrorists? Would france be "just defending itself" when it tried to raze london to the ground in response? Grow up Piers* you intellectual infant. We all know Piers would be first in line in that situation calling for attacks on France, would that make Piers a terrorist? Why do you claim these rights but deny them for Palestinians?
Edit: * fixed some typos
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nemanja7786 Court? Mate you seem to be confused.
Exemptions don't happen at court. Exemptions occur through the federal government. He went to court after his exemption was revoked on the grounds it was given on false grounds and he was not able to produce valid grounds for exemption. He made a false declaration on his visa application when claiming he as exempt. That's a serious criminal offence mate, one that holds a minimum 5 year jail term. If you came in doing that, you'd be in a criminal court right now.
He arrived with a doctor's note stating he had CoVID-19 on the 16rh of December. Once again, previous infection is NOT grounds for exemption under Australian law.
I'm not even sure what you imagine an "expert panel" would examine him for.
You understand it's not a question of whether he's fit, how generally healthy he is or whether he is currently infected right?
It's a simple question. Is he fully vaccinated with a vaccine on the approved list? The answer is no.
The question then becomes, does he have a condition such that would put him in a high risk cohort medically to become vaccinated. Again, the answer is no. Indeed individuals in such cohorts are not going to be tennis top seed, and many such cohorts are already very unwell. .
The high court at no stage granted an exemption, it's not in the power of the court to do so nor was that why he went to court. The court upheld his prior exemption, it did not grant a new one. Furthermore it did not find medical grounds for an exemption nor was it looking for them. The case was about the cancellation and the exemption was upheld because of a procedural technicality. Border force gave him 1 fewer hour with his legal advisors than he was legally entitled to.
That's what he won the case on, not the merits of his entry.
Edit: Ministerial discretion is difficult to challenge, it doesn't require a reason to be executed. The minister has the discretion under the law to exclude anyone from entry on even without cause. It's exceptionally unlikely that Novak will win and get to play, and of course it comes with a 3 year ban going down this route so Novak won't be back to an aussie open until 2026, which means by then he will no longer be the number one seed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It seems to me that if democracy really mattered to Angus and Nicola, they would have respected the will of the Scottish people in 2014 when they voted to stay in the UK. Instead they immediately, literally immediately, started demanding another referendum. They didn't even give it 24 hours after losing, they heard the result and immediately said they needed another referendum.
If democracy really mattered to Angus and Nicola, they'd be listening to the overwhelming majority of Scots who want them to stop harping on about independence and focus their attention on delivering on services and the economy for the Scottish people.
Instead they've got one issue and when they don't get their way they want to throw the rattle out of the stroller and have a tantrum.
If they can't deliver for Scotland with the support of the union, what kind of a wasteland would Scotland become if Nicola got the job title she's in this for?
Might I suggest that the way to Scottish independence is through an SNP government whom actually do a good job and make Scotland the best part of the UK through self funded services delivery, a strong diversified exports market outside of the UK, plenty of foreign investment, low poverty, high education and plenty of job opportunities...
Then and only then would I ask the Scottish people if they can think of a reason to remain part of a union that only holds them back from being more than the Scottish government had already delivered. That's how I'd go about it anyway.
I strongly suspect that the only reason the SNP haven't done exactly that is because they don't know how. That if they did know how they'd have been focusing on that instead of empty nationalism. They've delivered none of that and Scotland under SNP has the highest poverty rate in the UK.
I hope the Scottish people send a strong message to the SMP at the next election that they aren't interested in independence right now, they want a strong Scotland first.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dondoodatUntrue. I know several senior members of royal mail, including one I'm related to. The main is scanned for it's contents. They can not physically open the mail without a court order, but how do you think they get one in the first place? They scan the contents with different sensors and anything that flags gets investigated by a human. Anything still suspicious can then have a warrant application applied.
The snowden leaks told us that the decades long running prism and keystone programs which have continued under new names are mass surveillance programs undertaken by 5 eyes countries on their own populations and include the gathering and mass telephony surveillance, including meta data, contents and gps coordinates matched to identifying profiles. The UK is the lead 5 eyes country.
Australia, another 5 eyes country already has these mandatory backdoors requirements for E2E IM, which includes signal. Indeed the Australian government via the AFP are a funding source for signal. So the fact of the matter is that signal is already compromised, a fact Meredith slips up on at 8:25 when under pressure. To investigate an account you need to break E2E. She has disclosed that signal have already done so and that's further disclosed in Australia with signals submission to ACMA.
That's not really the point however, and I think we both agree on the fundamental importance of E2EE as a last bastion of private communications. You are right that the proposal is like bugging everyone's phone or checking every piece of mail. My point is simply that they already do those things which is why they think it's ok to do this to E2EE and why it's so important that they don't. If E2EE is gone then that's it, game completely over on privacy, democracy over too because authoritarianism inevitably follows.
Amendment 205 is a sensible amendment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be clear, you can't get a movie shot down the barrel of a gun without pointing the gun at camera.
Think of every western you've ever seen and you'll understand it's completely normal to point props to camera in this genre.
The thing crew were upset about, and many had already walked off the job because of, was that the executive producer was lax on safety, rushed every scene, didn't give everyone a chance to do their jobs, refused to pay for the correct safety equipment, pushing the crew into longer hours than they should be so everyone was tired (and making mistakes).
Conditions were so bad from the outset that the original choice for armorer has stated publicly that despite it being a lifelong dream of his to work with Alec Baldwin he turned the job down because it was clear to him from the outset someone was going to get injured.
The producer of Rust they're talking about, funding the movie with his own money was... Alec Baldwin.
Despite being an accident, it was preventable. So Baldwin might actually be charged afterall.
On set the armorer is supposed to secure all guns and rounds when not in take. That Baldwin was using them to fire live rounds inbetween takes, and without the knowledge of his cinematographer and director speaks volumes about how that set was being run.
Edit: Formatting
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Eric Lundgren is a rich kid riding a bandwagon without any real knowledge of what he's doing or why. Some key points here;
* Claims to be about reducing e-waste, went to jail for creating CDs that he admits he knows people are going to lose (e-waste). In fact the creation of restore CDs created so much e-waste that OEMs (including dell) stopped handing them out and switched to the download method that Eric Lundgren used to acquire the software in the first place
* Just because you can download something for free, doesn't mean it can be distributed by a third party. The use of a different font wouldn't have changed anything in this case. The correct course of action would have been to provide a piece of paper with a URL on it to download the software. If he had done that instead he wouldn't have contributed further to e-waste or went to jail.
* Giving people a restore disc (or access to it) doesn't magically upgrade your computer. The reason people lose their restore disc is because they are used so infrequently in the life of a PC, that by the time a person purchasing an already 2nd hand refurbished PC might need to use one the PC is going to be so outdated and unusable that the restore disc isn't going to help anyway.
* The way a store disc actually works isn't the way Eric Lundgren described. What really it does is provide a purpose built temporary operating system (shell) for the express purpose of installing windows on your computer. There are no two ways about it, he absolutely violated Microsoft's IP.
* He claims to be an environmental activist, but came out of jail talking about how much he missed avocados, a fruit that is well known to be amongst the worst possible for the environment and steeped in violence, death and exploitation.
* He claims to be an environmentalist but has built a crazy luxurious house filled to the brim with environmentally unfriendly things.
* He claims to be pro environment but drives around in a Tesla, a vehicle that ExxonMobile publicly congratulates on their website as helping their bottom line because of how much petrochemical products are inside it.
* And he came out of jail, abandoned computers and has started doing the exact same thing for EV batteries. Those batteries are protected by IP, Telsa is super crazy about people dismantling them. Do not be surprised when Eric Lundgren ends up back in jail for what he's doing with batteries.
This guy seriously needs to talk to a lawyer or something, get more understanding over the issues and the lines he can play inside of. And for pete sake, he needs to stop thinking environmentalism is going to make him a household name of a tech giant. It's not. Dude needs a reality check, and apparently prison didn't do it for him.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@FlyingVolvo 🤣🤣 It's hilarious how predictable your response would be. That's exactly what I expected you to say, thanks for playing along. Now for some facts.
None of the organisations you have listed state any of the things you claim. If you bothered to do even a cursory perusal of the document you're referring to, you would see that it is neither written by, nor hosted on the official websites for, any of your aforementioned organisations. It is in fact written by and hosted on the website for a pro trans activist group. This group quite publicly bullied, politicised and harassed these organisations into lending their logos to the document. These are not organisations accustomed to interactions of a political or ideological nature, let alone those involving twitter bot campaigns, email campaigns and physical people with signs and megaphones.
The internal documents for these organisations, which include the DSM V, indeed take an opposing view to that document and inline with what I have previously stated.
Isn't it amusing that I have discussed what the genuine medical literature states. Yet your attempt at rebuttal consists merely of a call to authority to organisations whom do not actually make the claims nor support you statement*, but are not even relevant to the UK. 🤣
In an apparent dedication to logical fallacies you then turn to ad hom, asking for my qualifications as if that has any bearing on the validity of my prior statements. It does not. They are factual statements whatever my qualifications may be.
I have no desire to attempt an obscene call to authority. Nonetheless as it is clear you will* continue with such ad hom logical fallacy in reply if I do not provide my qualifications, and they are a matter of public record anyway, I shall give you the answer you have requested.
I have spent 18 years in medicine as a neurology and behavioural specialist, with formal training in cardio-thoracic, sleep medicine and epidemiology. I am no longer involved in clinical medicine, and am instead now the head of a multinational science advocacy non-profit. We make representations on behalf of our several hundred thousand strong membership to governments on 4 continents amongst other activities.
Do you feel any better knowing? Did that somehow change any of the things I've said? The factual nature of my prior words has nothing to do with whom made the statements.
Back to the genuine medical literature, of which there is a great deal, it is quite clear in conclusions to be drawn. Gender dysphoria (previously GID) is a SYMPTOM of pre-existing comorbidities and not a condition of its own. One does not treat symptoms, they treat causes.
Childhood trauma and environment, in addition to neurodevelopmental disorders (particularly autism) are extremely well correlated with gender dysphoria. Treatment of these comorbidities has been clinically demonstrated over the last 40 years and countless studies including longitudinal studies and meta-analysis to provide relief from gender dysphoria.
In very recent years we have also seen the rise of parental insisted gender dysmorphia, which until very recently was essentially unheard-of. Frequently these are mother's of a particular shall we say view, with little boys. It is being used to cover effeminate traits, homosexuality or in some cases merely the mothers/parents desire to have a little girl instead.
The manufacturers of the hormone therapies used (commonly referred to as puberty blockers) do not recommend their use for so called "gender reaffirming care". Indeed, they go as far as to state they should not be used for that purpose. Their effects on minors are not well understood, and are not reversible.
We do real harm with hormone therapies and surgeries designed to mutilate. The data on reoccurance of symptoms likewise can not be denied. 96% have symptoms return within 5 years.
So I say again, this is real harm being done. Harm to individuals not receiving proper and adequate psychiatric care. Harm to society whom are being guilted and bullied into playing along with a pantomime. So called "gender reaffirming care" is no more sound medical practice than it would be to prescribe pseudoephedrine to anorexics for weight-loss or to indulge schizophrenics in their psychosis.
Alice Litman was failed. But she was failed as much by the activists and ideological campaigners who push this nonsense, as she was by the system which fails to treat presentations appropriately.
Edit: Fixed typos
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Things that are not true.
Parliamentary sovereignty DOES NOT grant it rights over the monarchy. It only means parliament is a separate entiry and grants it the authority to create and pass laws, which ONLY become official AFTER they are signed off by the crown.
Parliament has some powers over the crown, such as their annual budget. However, this is more of a concept than a practical power shift, as the crown remains the only person whom may create a prime minister and thus form a government, and the crown retains the authority to dissolve parliament at will, appoint a caretaker government of their choosing and to refuse to ascend any or all bills which have passed both houses. These things do not require grounds, the crown is immune from question.
More functionally in a day to day sense, as the house of lords represents the relatives and friends of the crown, they have the power to refuse to pass any law and send it back to the commons. Practically, this means any government whom attempts to use it's powers to reign in the monarchy can face oblivion.
The crown absolutely trumps parliament and it always has. I don't care how many random dates you throw at me, these principles are in black and white and publicly available via government websites, particularly the parliament website.
Whilst there is a monarchy, the UK remains under the thumb of an individual and their will.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What an absolute farce. You've got one teacher striking because she's had to cancel a gym membership she's clearly never used, you've got another striking because she can't afford to travel enough, you've got a university lecturer whom genuinely believes the only public support she needs are the support of other teachers and you've got a general secretary of the unions who believes teachers are more important than any other profession. All whilst they currently make an above average wage. The upper middle class striking for more pay from a budget already in extreme deficit (ie. the country is bankrupt) whilst those on significantly lower pay bearly scraping by have to lose even more wages so these buffoons can try to force government to scrap services for the poor to fund teachers standards of living.
That's really what this comes down to across all of these strikes. The upper middle class complaining they've had to give up a few luxuries. None of these unions are striking for people on below average pay, none of them are striking for the poor. They're all striking for the upper middle class whom are amongst the least affected by inflation.
We keep hearing from people on picket lines claiming it isn't about pay it's about conditions and resources. But not once have we heard a union rep stay they're going to the government asking for better funding and resources for their respective industries. They're only talking about pay
There was a sign in one of the clips that read "I'm paid too much, said no teacher ever" but you could just as easily replace teacher with any role and it would be just as accurate, including extreme examples such as fortune 500 company CEOs and executive branch politicians. None of them have ever said they're paid too much either, indeed they all too believe they're underpaid for the jobs they do.
The reality is people who believe in the work that they do, value it, they think it's important. It's why they keep doing the work. People who value the work they do, also value themselves it's inevitable. People who value their work and themselves inevitably too, think they are underpaid even when they're paid above average.
This only goes to their head more when you have government and media inflating their egos with national days of thanks during CoVID.
The government hope that when* inflation is back under control (and it's much of the way there) the strike actions will just stop. But they won't. The union bosses have painted themselves into a corner, they have to seek more pay for their members now. The strikes will continue until public support and support of the membership dwells. This stuff has to stop.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be clear, you can not defeat ideas with military forces or violence. Ideas are pervasive.
Here's an idea, the sky is blue.
Of course in reality the sky is colourless, and the amount/size of particles in the atmosphere at a given location and the angle light hits those particles refracts light to make it appear all kinds of colours. Despite that truth I bet for most, if not all of you, reading this you will have instinctively agreed with the sky being blue.
Some of you right now might even be considering trying to rebut me with all manner of mental acrobatics in insistence that the sky is indeed blue (at least one of you will fail to read this far and do just that).
That's how pervasive ideas are, even wrong ideas. So, we do we send our armies to stop this wrong idea that the sky is blue?
ISIL isn't a country. It isn't a single hierarchical organisation. It isn't a place. It doesn't have fixed "bases" like an army does. It's an idea, a world view and set of beliefs. Anyone can self identity as being part of ISIL in the same way anyone can self identity as belonging to a fan base, QAnon, Antifa or the hacking collective Anonymous. There are lots of different groups, each with their own cells, who all fly the ISIL flag.
Many of the "rebels" yankville helped in Syria self identified as being part of ISIL. They still exist.
You can try to kill the people self identifying as belonging to ISIL but that just spreads those beliefs further and increases their numbers.
That's why ISIL is the perfect boogeyman for western governments to hold over their populations. It's a boogeyman that's guaranteed to still be here a century from now so they'll always be able to justify military intervention and the military spending that goes along with it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You're both overcomplicating this very simple and straightforward issue.
Women's spaces and legal protections separate from men exist for women. They clearly identified and fought hard to achieve those rights. So fhe question is simple, does a man have the right to invade or overcome the rights of women?
This ultimately comes down to, are men and mens feelings more important than women and woman's feelings. If they're equal, men don't have a right to access womens spaces even if such men claim to be women. The only way men can overcome the legal protections of womens spaces is if men have more rights than women. There you go.
Those who support men in womens spaces say yes, men are more important than women. Those who do not support men in womens spaces say that men and women are equal.
Men can not become women, no matter what they wear, no matter what they do with their hair, no matter what they dose themselves with or how they mutilate themselves. You are what you were born, mental illness doesn't change that.
edit: This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how an individual feels, or what an individual wants. It's more macro than that.
The entire point of a womans space is to protect women and segregate them from men. Women want spaces that do not have men in them. Is that really so difficult to understand? If you change the definition of the room you no longer have a sex segregated space, it's now a unisex space and women have just lost their rights to protection under the law.
The rights of 0.017% of population to exist in a delusion do not outweigh the rights of 51% of the population to feel safe.
Ffs, this guy is incoherent. Listen. Why does the man identifying as a woman want to go into a womans space? To not be around men, right? So the issue here is that women, real ones, want that same right and the man identifying as a woman violates that right the moment he walks into a womans space regardless of how any individual may or may not feel about it in the moment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A single vaccine dose does not provide good protection.
Rates of infection go up when you take away mandatory isolation restrictions, people become lax surrounding social distancing and mask wearing, and you still have an unvaccinated population.
Let's be clear here, the vaccination rates being described for Europe are all 16 years and above. They do not take into account persons under 16.
If 22% of the 16+ population of France is unvaccinated for example, and those people are allowed to intermingle unrestricted, or mostly unrestricted, that's ~11M people who can become reserviors for SARS-CoV-2 in addition to another ~15 million persons under 16.
One should expect cases to rise sharply where restrictions on movement and interaction are not applied.
You need something closer to 95% vaccination of total population with coronaviruses, to move into eradication from vaccination. Europe is nowhere near that. Those countries which are in those realms, or who are still applying restrictions, are fairing well, with no or low community transmission
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nasar1262 False.
I did not at any stage say duty of care did not exist, nor did I say a waiver eliminates duty of care. But duty of care has limitations, and those limitations change depending on the specific event/what was advertised.
So if you're running in an event like the NY Marathon where everything takes place in a man made environment, where runners can't carry bags and all elements of the race are under the control of organisers, the duty of care liability is very different than an extreme endurance race like say a cross country desert orienteering race where checkpoints may be 14-28 hours apart.
You would expect water to be provided in the former, you would expect to have to carry your own water in the later. They're very different kinds of events.
These kinds of extreme endurance events are by nature inherently dangerous, that's their biggest drawcard. There are far too many variables at play to make these events genuinely safe, nor would any participant want them to be.
So yes, duty of care exists but it doesn't change the requirement of personal responsibility. The whole point of the waivers is to make the limitations of duty of care clear, and they absolutely are legally binding waivers.
It is very common for endurance events to require participants to carry a PLB. This ensures that if something happens (and there's always at least some people who have an emergency event) they can be easily located and rescued. Event organisers will often contribute to rescue costs to a certain amount per individual or a fixed percentage. This is also spelt out in the terms of entry.
Whilst the organiser of the event this video was about had no business running such an event, they were not liable for under duty of care nor found legally accountable for many of the factors which led to the disaster. Continuing the race despite the weather is not a violation of duty of care, participants have access to (and of this calibre are almost certainly actively monitoring) weather reports. The ability to have your bag ferried to check point 6 was optional. Dress on the start line was at the discretion of the participant. The organiser should have insisted that all participants carry a PLB, however not having such a mandate given the relatively short course wouldn't violate duty of care.
What they did get in trouble for was how they handled the situation once they were alerted, and the inadequacy of their emergency planning. They really were novices.
But experienced participants should have known to keep their bag with them, or at very least to carry water and given the weather forecast to carry a pocket pullover. Doing so would have saved their lives, as would even one of them having had a PLB to alert rescuers sooner.
3
-
@Krystalmyth o.O I'm not convinced you even know what the words you're saying mean. Certainly you have demonstrated an ignorance to the subject matter along with a misunderstanding of risk. Your desire to shed yourself of personal responsibility is highly disturbing.
Sure, there is a level of risk involved in taking mass transport and yes you are not physically piloting the vehicle. However this does not absolve you of any accountability for personal safety. You do not become a mindless drone upon entering mass transport, nor do you go in naive to the risks involved. You weigh the risks and make a decision about what you will or won't take with you, where you might sit/stand, what you might do during the journey and perhaps most essential whether you utilise mass transport or not in a given scenario, and if so what type.
If you found out that it's your pilot's first time flying and the copilot has only even flown small aircraft you may (rightly) rethink your travel plans.
However, mass transport is a false comparison with something like extreme endurance marathons, survival scenarios (competitive or otherwise) or even through hikes. These are situations where the participant is alone in the truist sense of the word.
When you're done being a keyboard warrior, perhaps you might see fit to tell me whom do you expect is looking out for you when it's just you and your skills? When that is the entire point of the situation?
It's like expecting someone else is responsible for your rigging during a sky dive, or that someone else has to save you during your drop if your rigging doesn't perform. That's not how any of that works.
In an extreme endurance marathon you're going into hostile environments on purpose, you're showing off your skills and competing on them. Weather can, and often does, change rapidly in these competitions. Monitoring weather, both forecasts and conditions live on the ground is an integral part of the competition. There are check points but no defined track, there is an element of orienteering involved.
Mid pack participants may be near each other and able to work together if conditions turn poor, but those on the extremities and those taking alternative routes are completely alone.
What this event did was provide a harsh reminder to the community (which again I am a member of) that you should not allow yourself to be separated from your gear, or at very least you must always remain vigilant.
To put this back into the context of something you might understand, because it's clear you've never been involved in any kind of extreme activity. It's like walking down the street naked and blaming someone else that you got arrest. Or like driving your car while drunk then blaming police because you got into an accident.
These competitions aren't like the Boston or London marathons where anyone can be involved regardless of skill, where everything is highly controlled/monitored and worst case scenario you can stop at starbucks. These are elite, invitation only events where everyone involved knows what they're doing and is very good at it. A certain lack of safety and an emphasis on personal responsibility is the entire point of the competition.
3
-
3
-
@GypsyGirl317 Again it's important to remember this isn't an ordinary marathon we're talking about. It's invitation only, all participants are elite survivalists.
Imagine a field of bear grylls clones if he actually knew what he was talking about. The marathon is purposefully designed to test survival skills along the way, and has less on common with a marathon as most people understand it and more in common with an extreme orienteering competition. I mean how many traditional marathons have you been to where competitors carry a flint and steel, a camp stove and a tent? That's in those backpacks that were transported.
Participants were offered to have their packs taken ahead to checkpoint 6 where most participants would have reached by the evening. They needed their packs for the evening because they held their food, cooking supplies and sleeping supplies. They were told exactly where they were being taken to and it was only an option not mandatory. Not all participants in this competition gave up all of their gear, and those participants faired well, the video just didn't talk about them much because it wouldn't suit the narrative. The participants whom gave up their gear didn't go into it blind, they agreed first hand with the weather assessment.
Taking the gear to gate 2 or 3 would have been pointless. They were relatively close gates and the entire point of transversing the gear was to save on weight. It's a competitive advantage.
Marathons with open participation have people all over the place because they have to account for runners of all skill levels, ages and personalities. When you get into elite competition you've got a pretty homogeneous pack of participants . They're all highly skilled, experienced and knowledgeable people, in a narrow age band with similar personalities.
Think of it like a triathlon. When it's open to everyone you have boats out in the water, safety staff everywhere because you just don't know what everyone is capable of. When you have a triathlon in the Olympics the boats are on the shore and the significantly smaller group of safety staff don't expect to be utilised. Elite groups of athletes don't tend to have injuries and make poor decisions during a competition at the same rate as general population.
That's in part why it's so important to recognise that these athletes made a huge mistake in giving away all of their gear to gate 6. If there's a safety lesson to be taken away from this event, that's it. Always keep your just in case essentials on you during an extreme marathon, you're still light enough to gain competitive advantage.
That does not mean the organisers did nothing wrong. They absolutely did and I have never said otherwise. They should have had an experienced team and an evac plan in place. It's really their main job when holding such an event and that they ignored it was a major failing. But this idea that your safety is someone elses problem always gets people hurt. Always. No one cares about you as much as you do. Your safety is your problem no matter how much safety an event organiser or a government might put in place. To ignore that basic requirement is to ask for harm to befall you.
3
-
3
-
@brunohill3229 That's a foreign ESL journalist misquoting Gladys Berejiklian. Not that Gladys is someone used ever want to quote anyway.
It's a once in 5 years event. The east coast floods, it's how the Murray-Darling system works, this water will be in Victoria and SA this time next week. Lake Eyre relies on a 25 year high major flood event on the Murray-Darling to refill and come back to life.
It's flooding in SEQ as well, it's likely I'll be locked in by floodwaters tomorrow based on BOM data. You know, it's a thing that happens. It's why the SES, QFES/FRNSW, Energex and Councils have an annual floodwaters campaign and ask everyone to update their emergency kits every 6 months.
Ironically Brisbane City Council were just kicking off this years flood campaign at their meeting last Tuesday.
Our country is on a cycle of floods and fires, it's how it's supposed to work. Just like with fire, there are plants down the Marray-Darling uniquely adapted to only germinate their seeds during flood events. Queenslanders (houses) are built on stumps to avoid floodwaters.
To be clear though, it's still a big event, and its displacing people which sucks. It would just be helpful if media would stop over stating what's happening for ratings and just report fact. And not technical fact, like when they crawl flood metre heights and find tiny parts of areas that technically haven't gotten so high in 50 years but have been centimetres out, then report that as "parts that haven't seen as bad flooding in 50 years". It's technically true but misleading at the same time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The ICJ does not have the power given the specific constraints of the case brought by south africa to order that two parties involved in an armed conflict must cease and desist. That isn't what south africa was asking for and thus was never on the cards.
What the ICJ did say was that Israel had to stop any behaviour which could be construed as genocide. The UNSC has a mandate to enforce such orders and failure to do so would destroy the credibility of the ICJ forever and undermining any argument they might have for a rules based order. With that said it is not entirely in the hands of the UNSC, the order by the ICJ gives Israels neighbours legal cover to engage and enforce the order. Eygpt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Türkiye could all choose to intervene if they want and be completely justified under international law. Will they is another matter.
Of course justice isn't real, particularly at a geopolitical level, did you really think it was? They're competing, rival countries fighting for land, power and money, of course there's no justice. 😂 next you're going to try claiming your free.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
According to official figures on the Scottish government website, they acknowledge that their daily case numbers are NOT accurate and have only just started to include LFD data in addition to PCR. Governments around the world are winding back their test and trace measures which leaves us with highly inaccurate figures.
Viruses do not peak and drop off on their own without interventions. A virus host is both food and an opportunity to reproduce for a virus, like with all population booms in nature they continue until conditions become unfavorable. Indeed in the case of vaccination, lock downs and movement restrictions that's the entire point. To reduce the surface area for virus reproduction to such an extent that there is no longer sufficient virus circulating to cause new infections.
According to NHS data on hospital admissions and CoVID-19 deaths direct from the NHS tableau website, both are still climbing. Indeed hospital admissions are now climbing at such a rate they've expanded beyond exponential and are now represented by a straight line and at an admissions level unseen since March 2020.
So let's be clear your claim is erroneous. It doesn't matter what spin the local media or Scottish government are putting on it, the official figures are clear. There has been no drop off.
Moreover, so called 'long CoVID' is still present at an identical rate in omicron. 'Long CoVID' has always been the greater threat during the pandemic because it leaves sufferers unable to participate in the workforce indefinitely. Severity of symptoms during CoVID infection is not a factor nor indicator in the likelihood of an individual developing 'long CoVID' and is seen at a rate of 1:3 across all infections.
One must consider the long term economic consequences of allowing great numbers of people to become exposed and develop 'long CoVID'. Can Scotland afford to have 33% of their working age population suddenly drop out of the workforce and require indefinite social benefits?
And finally as lilian S so eloquently points out, variants are simply evolution at play. Because the lifespan of each generation of a virus is measured in hours, that dramatically speeds up evolution. The more generations and the larger the scale of such generations, the higher the instance of genetic variation. Or in other words the more people infected the higher the risk of new variants.
Please remember that genetic variation doesn't play out one variation at a time nor is it intelligently decided. As with all evolution, we see regular concurrent variants in SARS-COV-2 most of which are not a concern. However, all 5 of the variants of concern we have seen descended from the immediately previous variant of concern.
A variant of concern from Omicron would combine Omicrons escape of the vaccine induced antibodies with potentially more serious disease. The more infections, particularly in the unvaccinated and immunocompromised population (which include children), the greater the risk of a new variant of concern.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RussCR5187 Yet again you're talking about things you have no understanding of and of course, getting it very wrong.
No, it is not a data point in a trend. As already established, it's an event that occurs with some regularity in the region. It's heavy rain ffs, it happens every now and then. It has nothing to do with AGW.
Real climate change isn't sexy, it doesn't fit neatly into a news segment and it isn't seen in singular weather events. Climate is not weather, and weathers relationship to climate is far more complex than simply one contributes to the other.
Climate change is about looking at trends over extended periods of time, hundreds or thousands of years. Looking for normal climate cycles, because climate does fluctuate naturally, looking for natural trends then comparing them to what's been happening since the industrial revolution.
It isn't about freak weather events that make a good headline because once in a century weather events have always occurred.
It's looking at how the climate systems function, what is normal for them and how they're shifting because of us. A good, yet very overly simplified, way of thinking about climate is to imagine a map of earth and divide it into 8 zones. Each zone represents a climate system (which is a physical thing). Now shift those 8 zones a 1/4 of their height up and to the left. Remember a map is a flat representation of a 3D object so the parts that extend off the map now should appear in the lower right quadrant.
That's climate change. Well at least a simplistic high view of it to help you see where you're going wrong.
People need to stop jumping up and down and exclaiming climate change every time the wind blows a little hard or it rains a bit. That's not climate change, and pretending otherwise is entirely unhelpful to the cause.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
😂 What is this video? You didn't make a case for any of your claims. Products sold by any Chinese garmets manufacturer are going to contain some level of Uyghur cotton, which btw have NEVER been demonstrated to be slaves, nor have any of the claims about them been substantiated. That doesn't mean it's not happening, it might be. It also might not be.
So when you claim uyghur cotton is slave cotton, then claim temu uses that cotton, even though every Chinese manufacturer does, and then claim people are terrible if they use temu as a result, your argument holds no water and you're left looking like an overly emotional 🤡
Then you try to complain that chinese companies take resources, make a product cheaper and sell it back at a loss as if that's not actually just the spirit of market competition. Every game console ever sold in history by any manufacturer has been sold at a loss. Every consumer printer is the same. Costco sells its hotdogs and chickens at a loss, are they terrible and you terrible if you buy them? Give me a break.
Capitalism is competition. If you can't compete, you go out of business. Every yankvillian mega corp does the same in every country they do business including their own. That's why they're mega corps now.
If temu was hurting the mega corps, they'd compete in very similar ways. It's not, though. Temu is a market place. It doesn't sell any products itself, it just connects you with sellers. Sometimes those are manufacturers, sometimes retailers.
Now there's definitely problems with how they treat their sellers, big problems. But you apparently don't know or care about those. You're too busy talking empty nonsense
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Medically there are a number of potential explanations for this event as described by witnesses which do not require one to move into the rare or uncommon.
However, that assumes the witnesses were reliable. Given the speed at which the train passed through the station, the reliability of what they believed or at least stated they saw, is called into question. It's harder than standing in the side of the motorway and having to look up suddenly and describe a specific driver chosen at random.
The front carriage where the driver sat compressed 9.9m, from 16m down to 6.1m. The drivers cabin itself was crushed from 91cm to just 15cm. That means whilst it was possible to test brakes, shared components and other mechanics further down the train, it was not possible to test anything from within the drivers cabin.
That means mechanical and electrical fault in reality can not be ruled out. This could be as simple as a sticky dead man's switch.
Key information left out about Newson includes that he had overshot the same station in similar manner twice in the week prior to the incident. That makes a medical event less likely, least of all a rare one.
Newson indeed had a history of drinking, including whilst on the job. He had problems in his personal life which likewise may have contributed.
This video makes a mistake, the air inside the tunnel reached 49°c not 40°c. Those additional 9°c are significant and contributed directly to at least 2 of the deaths.
This event was far more complicated with more moving parts than this video would like to make out. It concentrates on a single individual, when this is bigger than one man with far more nuance.
If you want to understand this event, you need to look at the culture of the organisation at the time, the maintenance records, Newson's history and that of the guard. Nothing happens in isolation.
Whilst entertaining, videos from this channel should not be seen as any kind of authority or truth on events. These videos should only be viewed as entertainment, events of interest should be explored in more depth elsewhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jcdenton7242 First and foremost, your mistake is thinking what you want matters. The royal family aren't some quirky family that a democracy pays for. The royal family are Britainy, everything that happens, every law that passes, every person who exists within does so at the pleasure of the crown and for no other reason.
All legislation, all of it, must receive royal assent. If the crown is displeased with a piece of legislation posed to her/him they have every right to say no and the legislation will never be. Moreover, the crown has the power to create new legislation out of thin air without the involvement of parliament or any other oversight.
The UK is not really a democracy. It's a monarchy with some characteristics of democracy but none of the protections or guarantees a democracy holds. The crown is the head of state, and as a monarch by law is entitled to ownership of all and any lands in their kingdom. Indeed no PM exists without the confirmation of the crown and the crown can fire not only the PM but every or any member of parliament at will. They exist solely at the discretion of the crown. Remember it really wasn't all that long ago that the Queen detached the treasury from her bank account. Prior to that every pence of the UKs money belonged to the crown.
The Queen has made it a personal policy to not interfere, and although she reads all legislation before her hand she essentially rubber stamps it all. Whilst there is some speculation Charles intends to follow in his mothers footsteps when the Queen steps down later this year, there are absolutely no guarantees.
So let's knock off this idea that what you want, think or feel about the royal family matters in the slightest.
Most minor royals lead relatively normal private lives. They hold jobs, they pay taxes, they serve the crown and don't benefit from tax endowments. Most don't even get security.
The Queen gets an endowment from which she's able to distribute those funds as she sees fit. That endowment pays for the entire staff at all of the crown estates, the extremely costly maintenance of all such estates, any weddings that take place, it will pay for the coronation towards the end of this year, all of the travel, gifts to foreign heads of state, etc.
The Queen, the late Prince Philip, Charles, Carmillia, William and until recently Harry all act as ambassadors, responsible for hundreds of billions of pounds in trade and investment flowing into the UK. Without them the UK would be a much poorer and less powerful place.
The core royals also hold peerages & patronages, these make them money. But the big money earners for core royals are things like speaking engagements, private endorsements, their influence on deals, etc. They're privately earned funds, some questionable in morality sure but privately earned all the same.
The Queen left Andrew in the cold. When she said no taxpayer funds were to be used she meant it. Andrew is currently in significant debt. Some of the homes he's selling right now he purchased with loans that have not yet been paid back and he isn't intended to divert any of the funds from their sale into doing so. Currently he owes something in the order of £300M. VRG has bankrupted him, only as a royal he isn't able to file bankruptcy.
Unless the Queen (or Charles when he ascends) endorses Andrew again once all the dust of this settlement clears, he's finished.
Edit: It should also be noted that his foreign immunity was pulled by the Queen. If he sets off in yankville the FBI have every right to arrest him and have made it clear that they would do so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Get the greek "volunteers" (residents) out of there. They're the only people getting hurt, which means emergency services have to divert to resources to rescue the "volunteers" (residents instead of fighting the fire.
Further, the "volunteers" (residents) have no clue what they're doing. As a result not only are they failing to put out fires completely, further diverting emergency services resources but the ambers from the fires they've failed to flully extinguish are spreading and causing new fires.
They are hindering the operation, get them out of there and arrest all whom refuse.
The Turkish volunteers are doing the right thing, they're nowhere near the fire. If they want those fire breaks to be useful they need to be twice as wide as they're currently cutting.
Costas Synolakis is far from the head of the Academy of Athens, he's a third section member for geology. That's about as low on the pole as you can get and still be a member.
The actual head of the academy is Loucas Christophorou. The head of climatology at the Academy is Christos Zerefos. Stop misrepresenting who people are, their role and their relevance.
I understand that blaming climate change for everything bad that happens is very trendy today and that leads to better ratings. But jumping up and down, acting like there is an emergency is unhelpful.
A single heatwave is not climate change, that's not how this works. Moreover, arson is not anything to do with climate. Yes, heatwaves do tend to bring out the arsonist all over the world, but that isn't the climate or even the weather itself. That's psychology.
Understanding the difference between a singular regional weather event, climate and climate change is important. Genuine climate change isn't sexy, it isn't sensational and it doesn't get high ratings. Conflating singular weather events and climate change, particularly AGW is not accurate, helpful and really can be described as misinformation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's an interesting strawman argument @Irrelevantusername000 but I never said the catalyst for inflation in the UK was brexit, nor did I say high inflation was exclusive to the UK nor still that the UK had the highest inflation. You might want to work on your comprehension skills a bit mate. If you're going to direct an argument towards me, do try to make sure it's actually relevant to anything I've said.
Whilst I'm here, I might as well correct a few things in your strawman.
- Inflation has elevated in a select group of OECD countries across the world and is not exclusively a European problem.
- There are some external and some domestic factors at play. How an effected country responds to these factors and inflationary pressure in general determine rate of inflation.
- The key shared factors across this group are
1a. Over reliance on a single source in the supply chain (China) and the ripple effects caused by China's ongoing lockdowns.
1b. Higher than usual demand (spending) following CoVID. People have gone nuts since they've been allowed back outside, and they've been buying up everything in sight.
1c. The miscalculation by some product markets on how demand would be during CoVID which caused congestion in international shipping.
2a. The SANCTIONS on Russia which only blow back onto the economies pushing the sanctions. The actual war has no effect on inflation. Inflation would drop several points overnight if the sanctions alone were dropped and relations with Russia normalised. This is domestic policy, it can be changed at any time and is a choice government are making
2b. The transition of the EU and UK away from Russian oil and gas. Even on a slow year that's an exceptionally high amount of demand to suddenly dump on the open market. That in turn pushes up energy prices globally, including ironically how much Russia can get for it's resources. If the EU and UK normalised their supply back to Russia, energy prices around the world would stabilise. This too is domestic policy. Russia is happy to cut a deal today.
3. The insane spending bills yankville has passed in the last 18 months totalling $3T in BORROWING which has devalued the greenback and in turn owing to petrodollars has flown through to every other connected economy. Think what Truss did to the UK economy, but on a much grander scale and allowed to remain in place for 2 years without directing course.
4. The overspending leading to massive frivolous borrowing in all the effected countries. Borrowing which did not improve productivity or grow the domestic economy.
Domestically inside the UK you have factors such as over reliance on gas imports for heating, no gas reserves which make purchasing real time, the lifting of wages to try to combat inflation (which only creates more inflation) and that whole mess Truss made. Domestic factors pushed up inflation by several points beyond where it otherwise would be.
On one had you say it's too early for brexits impact to be known, then you claim no one expected an immediate positive impact, and finally you claim things are 3 years behind. I'll correct each of those individually however it must be pointed out that you're contradicting yourself here.
In terms of brexit impacts, they're a known quantity. Indeed they were a known quantity before they even occurred. Some are positive, some are negative and some are neutral. Brexit finalised on 31 Dec 2020, just shy of 2 years ago. All the effects brexit was ever going to have, have been and gone. Brexit is over, so whether you're happy about brexit or not is entirely irrelevant at this point. All the domestic effects over the last year for certain (and more realistically last 18 months) have been the sole responsibility of UK government.
Inflation is controlled by two factors, productivity (which is separate from growth) and demand. To control inflation you need to increase productivity whilst you decrease spending in a measured way. Government needs to have the biggest hand in that, because government has the fine controls at their disposal to make that happen. When government fails to act the Bank of England must step in to maintain stability in the economy by using the only lever at its disposal, interest rates.
Interest rates are a large, inaccurate hammer to bear though. It's hard to use them and not oversteer, pushing the economy instead into recession. That appears to be precisely what's happening. Recession of course is the polar opposite to inflation. Higher productivity than demand. Recession could have been avoided had the government acted. Unfortunately everyone was first too upset that Boris didn't invite them to his garden party to act, then everyone was fussing over leadership, then a dumpy northern woman completely out of her depth held the reigns and now that she's been disposed of there's a banker at the reigns doing everything he can to avoid his mates and relatives losing money at the expense of everyone else.
Lastly; and I apologise this has been such a long comment you had many mistakes to cover, you said "let's see what happens". That is absolutely no way to run a country. In fact taking such an approach to running an country is certain to end in disaster. When running a country outcomes need to be known quantities before policy is put into effect. You need a steady hand and the sense to take advice from the public service whose job it is to make these predictions.
The TL;DR is
You presented strawman. The strawman you presented wasn't even accurate to the facts. People who don't understand a topic, don't get to have an opinion. Come back when you understand what's going on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Paul-eb2cl First and foremost, inflation is not rising prices. Inflation is devaluation of currency.
Currency valuation is not based solely on exchange rates, least of all with a single fiat.
Energy prices have not collapsed, but more importantly when they do go down it takes time for those prices to make their way through the supply chain into the end user markets.
Similarly, to claim "raw materials" have collapsed is complete nonsense.
Costs for the services sector are far from just wages. Inflation isn't embedded in the service sector specifically, and it's not yet actually clear that inflation has embedded yet at all.
Wages as costs aren't real wages. I don't think you even actually know what that term really means. If you did you'd understand it isn't relevant to your sentence, nor should it be surprising that real wages would be low when the currency is devalued (which manifests as reduced buying power to consumers).
Seriously, open one of those inflation calculators that calculates currency inflation between two given years. Put in two years, make them at least 30 years apart. It's not telling you how much a pound is. A pound is a pound. It's telling you the buying power as all currencies devalue over time. Amazingly exchange rates were good for most of whatever years you plug in. Inflation is the rate at which the currency devalues.
Productivity is NOT growth. Growth is a completely different metric, that albeit related can't help with inflation.
Productivity is the raw volume of production achieved in a given period. On an individual level it's how many assigned tasks you get done in a day/week/month/year, how many clients you see, or in terms of manufacturing how many products you produce.
When productivity is low that reduces exports and reduces the quantity of available products in the market. When there is high demand because there's plenty of cash in the market, that pushes up prices.
Let's use the service sector as an example seeing as you brought it up. The services sector has raising wages, a confined workforce and low productivity. Low productivity means the workforce can service fewer clients. Demand for those services is higher than can be catered for at current productivity levels. That bottleneck alone raises prices.
Let's talk NHS as another example. Low productivity leads to backlogs. Backlogs lead to workers out of participation in the workforce or lower than normal productivity. That leads to lower productivity across the economy and higher inflation, so your wages are worth less and so is your buying power.
When nurses and junior doctors strike, or any core industry does for that matter, those effects are greater because productivity reduces dramatically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh look, a PR piece. Let's talk real here
What apple is proposing won't give you anymore privacy. They aren't giving you the power to stop APPLE from tracking your behaviour.
They're giving you the ability to opt out of allowing third parties to collect your data for free. That makes them the only source from which those businesses can get that information which we know they already happily sell them.
This isn't about privacy, it's about creating an environment where if you want Apple user data, you have to pay Apple for it.
Apple puts PROFIT first not consumers. If they put consumers first they'd be on board with right to repair. They wouldn't extort repair costs to make buying a new device price comparable. They wouldn't pull apps for using a payment method that doesn't go through Apple like they did with EpicGames. They wouldn't pull or block apps that compete with Apple, like they did with all the game streaming apps.
They wouldn't charge 3x as much for comparable hardware. They wouldn't make up stories about their abilities. They wouldn't have cooperated with PRISM nor would they continue cooperating with what PRISM was renamed to.
If Apple really cared about your privacy they could deliver that. They could provide a VPN connection by default. They could remove the requirement for an Apple ID, and they could allow users with Apple IDs to opt out of being tracked. They could work with open source projects like key base to make your messages and calls not only highly encrypted, but their origin impossible to determine. They'd process all cookies from the VPN side.
They don't do those things because Apple want to track you, that data even if not sold nor shared, is incredibly valuable.
Apple is about building an ecosystem whereby all profits lead back to Apple, removing all completion and limiting as many third parties as possible. If Apple thought they could sell as many devices that could only use Apple software, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd do exactly that. Apple views you as a wallet filled with cash it hasn't acquired yet, and nothing else.
2
-
Why are you trying to manufacture controversy where literally none exists. Facebook does not have a valid argument.
And wtf is Jim Anderson talking about? Dear Jim, Apple make a phone. They're saying on their product they're going to allow users to opt-in to being tracked by companies like Facebook.
It is a change only to iPhones. Android phones won't have the same feature. PureOS phones won't have the feature. Ubuntu Touch phones won't have the feature. HarmonyOS phones won't have the feature.
Only iOS. Apple, as the creators and distributors of iOS obviously have the right to offer whatever legal features they want, in the same way Facebook do with their products. To suggest Apple shouldn't have the power to decide what to offer in their products is frankly, ludicrous.
Let's be clear here, this feature is a USER CHOICE. Facebook only has to worry about a drop in revenue if most iOS users do not opt-in to being tracked. Period. If users opt-in to being tracked it's business as usual. If USERS, that is average people, are electing to not have Facebook track them that's their personal decision. If as Jim tries to suggest some people might like being tracked in order to see personalised ads, they can opt-in. That's literally the point of the feature.
Facebook's argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to have a choice whether Facebook track them, because something about small business.
And let's also be clear here, small business isn't going to be hurt because some iPhone users suddenly don't want to be tracked by Facebook. Believe it or not, most small businesses don't only use Facebook advertising products to attract customers. If the stop seeing returns from Facebook, they'll spend less money on Facebook and put those ad dollars into another marketing platform. Those businesses will keep on keeping on as if nothing changed, it's a minor blip in their marketing strategy.
This only effects Targeted marketing platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter, as well as their investors. That's the real controversy here, some very rich people who have invested in Facebook could lose some money if they don't pull out of Facebook in time.
Facebook's attempts to find against Apple should be illegal. But they should also highlight to everyone how willing Facebook is to put lipstick on a pig in order to manipulate you and lie to your face.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
They never do listen, that's the problem with the world today. All this democracy, but the voters are uneducated morons who only read the headlines, only hear the bits they want to hear and are ready to forget the lot tomorrow. What they heard from him was he was going to make their lives better and blah blah blah take down corruption. They didn't hear how he planned to do it. They didn't care, until the reality of it was on their front door effecting them.
This isn't isolated to Argentina. This is the same in every democracy on the planet right now. Everyone wants their lives to be better, but they want someone else to do the things to make it so. Being a citizen in a democracy has duties and responsibilities attached to it, but few want to fulfil their obligations. People have forgotten the importance of being politically engaged and informed. It's too much effort for them, and too difficult to navigate the media who long ago sold out into political PR.
The danger is that we get to a point where people start blaming democracy as the point of failure instead of looking to themselves. You all caused the dysfunction in your own democracies, with the division on extreme wings and allowing those people to hold mainstream narratives, by being ignorant of the goings on or even how the system works, by putting pleasure and leisure over civic duty, by not holding bad politicians and the hijacking of the system by party politics to account, by simply not giving it the attention it deserves. No it isn't fun, but it's your job as a citizen and if you don't fulfil those obligations you have no leg to stand on when you complain as your country collapses around you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pkexi funny you should say that, I'm Australian.
Here in Australia the national adult minimum wage is $19.84/hr for those without an industry award, and potentially higher or lower for those with an industry award. Australian's have some of the highest AVERAGE wages in the developed world too.
The effect is that everything costs more. Groceries cost 65% more than in the USA and 44% more than in the UK. Consumer goods cost between 25-400% more than in the USA and Europe after currency adjustment. Real estate is outside the scope of the average person, with the average cost of a standard 2 bedroom in any capital city somewhere around $2-4M.
In the USA Taco Bell will sell you a taco for $1.89. In Australia that exact same taco costs $8.95
However, the adult minimum wage does not impact entry level jobs intended for youth, because junior wages have their own minimums which go by age and are as low as $7.30/hr for under 16s. The USA does not split minimums by age.
If you walk into a fast food restaurant in Australia you'll find almost exclusively under 18s behind the counter, mostly 14-16 year olds capping wages for the sector at just $9.38/hr
That has an impact on some sectors because it means they simply won't hire you if you aren't a junior. In other sectors it means if you don't have work experience and education sufficient to make you a value proposition by the time you hit 19 and aren't a junior anymore, you're locked out of the labour market. That is if the USA thinks it's hard for post graduates without work experience to get a job, check out Australia where it simply isn't possible.
Higher minimum wage has no impact whatsoever on income inequality with mega corporations. If anything it widens the gap. Australia has a real problem with the working poor, that is people who don't earn enough at work to pass the poverty line. Whilst full time workers under legislation have great benefits, that suit of benefits and rights makes hiring full time workers both undesirable and/or out of reach for smaller employers.
The effect of that is most employees are employed as casuals, and many have to take 2-4 casual jobs to have enough money to get through the fortnight. It's been a problem during this pandemic because we've had nurses and security guards cross contaminating sites by way of working more than one job, leading to bigger outbreaks and thus lock downs.
Casual employees have little job security and almost no benefits whatsoever.
Labour markets are markets, just like anything else. Think of it as an employer purchasing an employee. If it costs to much, either upfront or through hidden costs, than the employer won't purchase. Likewise, if the purchase price is too high for what the employee can offer the employer won't purchase.
What is important, and keeps the Australian economy ticking over is ready access to education, apprenticeship/traineeship programs, employer training, universal healthcare and other supports.
That allows Australians to upskill and get away from minimum wage quite quickly even when they're casual. No adult should be aiming to be on the minimum wage, they should be improving themselves to be worth more money.
That's then matched with one of the LOWEST paying unemployment benefits in the world at less than 1/4 of minimum wage. It's so low that it isn't liveable, that's on purpose.
Australia has competent leadership who work together across the aisle when it matters and who understand economics. The USA does not have that, heck it doesn't even have leadership competent enough to handle the pandemic or even a snowstorm.
It's also important to note that Australia has not seen the kinds of economic growth the USA has. Higher minimum wages for adults has definitely had a dampening effect on the economy, which is probably not what you want when you're already seeing negative growth.
Far from wages, what the USA needs to focus on is education opportunities and access, as well as access to healthcare. Those things have far more impact in economic mobility which is the real driving force in an economy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@P Pierre Your assertion to Robert with regards to AstraZeneca is false. The EU simply failed to insist on an adequate contract.
One also does not fine another party for failure to deliver in a contract.
However a penalty clause my be inserted with items such as mandatory discounts or automatic partial, staged or full termination of the contract in the event contractual obligations are not met.
The UK contract stipulated a priority clause, regardless of any contract with another party that clause obligated AstraZeneca to fulfill the UK order first. Because that's how you write a contract.
It also needs to be mentioned that a clause which is unreasonable, such as the impossible delivery schedule the EU requested, will be nulled in court should either party decide to take it there.
The EU have demonstrated endlessly over the last decade that they have no clue how contracts work, nor how to word them appropriately. Not just with external partners but even internally with other member states.
90% of the EUs problems, including internal squabbles, and the current gas and electricity price increase problems, have to do with the failure of the EU to adequately word, and understand the contracts they are entering into.
Instead of being upset with everyone else, be upset with the problem. The ineptitude of the EU Commission and the unelected MEPs whose incompetence astounds and delights the world. Insist on competent leadership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ravinair2465 roflmao. Thank you for demonstrating it's an Indian thing and not something exclusive to this woman. So animated, yet so in a rush to prove yourself illogical, idiotic and unhinged.
Per capita figures are used to determine individuals, but are flexible in their context. In this case they do not calculate based on general population, because the general population have not been tested and therefore can not be commented on. Per capita figures for CoVID-19 only include those tested. By bringing it down to the individual level you are comparing apples with apples.
Her entire point of trying to use per million figures was to misrepresent and dilute the numbers in population to make the terrible events in India seem less than they genuinely were. Choosing a statistic that on the face of it is only useful in domestic discussion and not comparison between nations, was nothing short of not only intellectual dishonesty but general dishonesty too.
No matter how you slice it when using intellectually honest statistics, India is amongst the worst performers during the pandemic. The outbreak that bore the world B.1.617.1, and which quickly mutated into B.1.617.2 was entirely preventable. Entirely but not for the political ego of Modi and the BJP at large, and for those so ready to congregate in numbers.
The only people lying through their teeth here are this woman, and those in these comments who seek to defend her or the BJP. The world has no motivation to lie about India, I have no such motivation.
The BJP and Modi have lied throughout the pandemic, whenever they attempt to suggest India has magically defeated the pandemic, that the pandemic is somehow over or perhaps most amusingly that India had achieved herd immunity. It too has lied when it says, as the spokesperson in this video suggests, India has done the best in the world. It was dishonest of you therefore to then try to shift away from the performance of nations when I named some of the best performers, to vaccination rates with more false equivalence statistics.
To be exceptionally clear here, the pandemic will continue globally for quite some years ro come. Vaccination is an important tool but it is far from a solution nor the whole story. This will continue for every country in to 2022, in to 2023, in to 2024 and depending on the response of nations potentially beyond. India is not special or magic, this applies to India too and therefore those religious festivals and political gatherings which served as super spreader events need to be postponed indefinitely until such time as the pandemic is genuinely over some years in the future.
Any government official who attempts to convince you otherwise despite how sweet such words may be to hear, is indeed lying to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just like with protests anywhere, they aren't putting them in jail. They're forcing the bulk to move on. That's why they're using the word detained, not arrested. Arrests are few and far, but that also makes Russia seem more relatable/reasonable so they can't have that.
4000 people involved in a protest in Russia is 0.002% of population. For context, police in yankville detained 4x as many people during the 2020 BLM riots.
What Russia have asked for is quite reasonable and has popular support. They have asked NATO to halt advancement towards their border and rule out (in writing) that Ukraine will join NATO in the next 30 years. For context, Ukraine joining NATO would put NATO bases, soldiers, missiles, etc on Russia's border. It's the equivalent of the bay of pigs. Russia's other demand is for Ukraine to stop murdering their own civilians in the Donbas, which they have been doing openly for the last 8 years and every major news agency on the planet (including this one) has covered in detail. I dunno about you but don't put NATO military assets in our backyard and don't murder civilians because you want the oil/gas under their towns seem like pretty straightforward demands to me.
Ukraine has refused to abide. Yankville led NATO has refused to abide. Indeed both Ukraine and Yankville did everything in their power to escalate, and Ukraine is endlessly pushing propaganda. Al Jazeera has an incredibly brave journalist covering what's happening in Ukraine and very frequently he will report what Zelenskyy is saying then contradict him by pointing out (often accompanied by video evidence) that the journalist and his camera person were just at that location and found no evidence of what Zelenskyy is saying.
2
-
2
-
Beyond that not being true, what exactly do you imagine electric cars have to do with anything? The bulk of oil imports anywhere DO NOT go into vehicles. They go into all manner of products. From shampoo, make-up and soaps, to electronics (including whatever device you're reading this on, the cameras that filmed the video and all the infrastructure inbetween), to paint, clothing, cleaning products, everything plastic you've ever owned and even pharmaceuticals, medical devices and food.
Petrochemicals are in everything, oil is a lynchpin to technological advancement and life as you know it. Ironically it's even a critical component of the EVs you're plugging. Without oil there are no batteries on the battery EV. There is no interior. There are no tyres. There are no circuitry, there is no electric motor or transmission. There's no solar panels, wind turbines or wave capture turbines without oil.
You've fallen for greenwashing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@develentsai3215 Mate, your anecdotal experiences of 7 out of 10 ASEAN countries has nothing whatsoever to do with why ASEAN is holding its distance.
The ASEAN charter has an entire chapter devolved to essentially "do not interfere with other member states". ASEAN by its own rules can not do anything.
The UN has a non-interference rule as well. The UN is essentially just a forum, a place for member countries to come and talk with one another, find common ground on shared issues and ways they can work together in a similar direction towards a solution to their common problems.
You appear to be a fantasist. In reality there is no organisation, country or other entity that "polices" other countries. There is no shared, agreed morals/values that all countries should adhere to, there is no agreed system of governance that all countries must abide by, there are no ways with which to treat your population which all countries must abide by.
Each and every country is a sovereign territory, that's literally the point of a country. As sovereign territory they can do ANYTHING they want within their own borders so long as it doesn't interfere with other nations or post a risk of interfering with other nations.
If a dictator wants to kill a million of their own people today, some countries might shake their heads and tut about it, but none of them could nor would do anything about it.
It's no one's job to tell Myanmar how it has to govern itself. Countries can suggest to the Tatmadaw military dictatorship that they'd like to see a transition towards democracy. Countries can say they won't let financial transactions from the Tatmadaw go through their country anymore (sanctions). Countries can say they disapprove (condemn). But that's it. The Tatmadaw is under no obligation to listen or care.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SicAltusIsVulnero First and foremost, inflation is a product of too much cash in the economy compared to productivity, so spending less is the goal to bring it down. That's the entire point of the bank of England raising rates 13 consecutive times. To pinch your wallet and slow down spending.
Secondly, you clearly have no clue what the term "real wages" means. You've obviously only recently heard it as a result of this inflationary event and don't really understand it. So let me help you out.
Actual wages go up. People have more money in their pockets. Inflation is the devaluation of the pound, so when a pound is worth 0.7% less this month than last, the buying power of that power in turn reduces. Or in other words, when inflation goes up, the real value of your wages as expressed in buying power reduces.
The ONLY way to solve that issue is to bring down inflation sharply such that it leads to a brief period of deflation as a market correction.
There's no single factor driving high inflation, it's a complicated mix of foreign and domestic factors. When the politicians and media talk about the war in Ukraine being a factor what they really mean is the self imposed sanctions on Russia. It wasn't a coincidence that the high inflationary event has hit every country imposing sanctions on Russia all at the same time, immediately following those sanctions, but has not impacted countries like Switzerland which have remained neutral and imposed no sanctions. Those sanctions are undoubtedly the largest contributing factor. Meanwhile, the Russian economy even now more than a year later continues to strengthen. We're only hurting ourselves.
In terms of how big a factor they are on high inflation, the sanctions are closely followed by the manufacturing and exports delays from China as a residual of their pandemic measures, and global shipping backlogs.
The energy price shocks are caused by a shift from cheap Russian gas to incredibly expensive shale gas from yankville which originally wasn't even able to meet demand because no one in the market has wanted it. Not only is it 5 times as expensive, but 20x less energy can be converted from it, so more of it has to be purchased. Prices have come down because yankville have scaled up production, but this is as lose as gas supply costs are going to get, it's all up from here unless the UK electrifies or moves back to cheaper on continent gas supplies, such as from Russia.
There are domestic issues here too. The union strikes are a massive one. Higher wages only increase inflation. But it's more insidious than that. NHS and rail strikes drop overall productivity across the economy substantially. As previously mentioned, lower productivity spikes inflation. The UK has had abysmal productivity figures since 1997 which left the UK exposed, but now productivity figures are down even further the economy is on the tilt of collapse. See the market run from the Liz Truss budget.
The biggest domestic factors however are the 23 year growing budget deficit driven by ever dwelling tax revenues. The UK budget is just shy of half a trillion pounds in deficit. That means, EVERY YEAR the UK has to BORROW that amount just to provide basic services included in the budget. That's things like the NHS and rail, paid for with loans. It's even worst than that though, since high inflation the UK has been borrowing even more money just to pay the interest on it's existing loans. The UK is bankrupt. It means the UK lacks the ability to take loans for large infrastructure or growth projects which would stimulate productivity. The government does not have those options, because of a deficit started under Tony Blair and made worse by every subsequent government regardless of party. It's driven by parties promising tax cuts to win elections. It's terrible fiscal management.
The base tax rate is just 20%. That's far lower than any comparable market, and is the source of the problem. The treasury say the base tax rate should be 37% and sooner rather than later (like after the next election) a government is going to have to reconcile that tax shortfall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This doesn't seem very connected to Xi wanting to come off as a "strong leader". These are elements of a longer term strategy surrounding speech.
They are not going after gaming in general, only online gaming. At the same time they're going after internet celebrities, online messaging (eg. WhatsApp), etc.
Or in other words, they're cracking down on areas where speech, and the organisation of people, can't be adequately monitored/controlled.
China without the CCP would naturally have evolved to democracy. That's afterall what Tiananmen Square was about. As China increasingly becomes a world power, with expansionism on the agenda and increasingly connective technologies in play, the CCP has a harder and harder time keeping a lid on opposition and democracy movements.
This is about the same old China story, CCP trying to cement their control at all costs.
With that said, I'd be pretty happy if minors were completely banned from online games, period. And if gaming stores were held to greater account in knowingly supplying offline games to persons under the rating. For example if a parent went to buy a game for their underage child, the store should be forced to refuse the sale because they know it is intended for a minor.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ali Please do not put words in my mouth, it only discredits yourself.
Furthermore, colonialism occurred during a time of religious rule in Europe, WW1 occurred as a result of alliances with orthodox religious allies, WW2 was really a continuation of WW1 and not really a separate war, but did in fact feature an occultist convinced a modern German religion was the answer to unification as the aggressor.
So whilst I did not say secular societies are peaceful, nor am I saying so now, your examples do not hold water. That in your mind you have to stretch back 76- 300 years to find examples only further counters your argument.
Secularist societies aren't peaceful, they're human societies afterall. But secularism does open the door to discard tribalism which in turn leads to more coherent, inclusive and united societies. That in general means societies that are more peaceful, feature lower amounts of internal suffering, are more economically successful and technologically advanced in comparison to societies ruled by religion. Indeed the concept of human rights comes from and was only made possible because of, secularism.
No system is perfect, but all systems are not equal. Some systems are clearly better than others
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A woman is forced into a marriage with a serial abuser. For year after year he hits hurt, belittles her, uses her body often against her will, attacks her sense of self, gaslights her and generally engages in domestic violence.
Sometimes she says no and he beats her harder. Sometimes he gets drunk and attempts to murder her. Year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day this goes on and no one helps her despite her pleas.
Finally, one day whilst he's dishing out her routine beating because his dinner was served 62 seconds too late, his hands around her neck as she's about to lose consciousness she snaps. She picks up a pair of scissors and ends his life. She then calls the police and waits patiently for them to arrive. They send a swat team who knock down her door, and after deploying flash bangs burst into the room. Her empty hands are in the air as they reach her and violently throw her around as if she's resisting. They taser her and place her under arrest. She's charged, the months pass and she finally makes it to trial.
From the get go her ex-husbands family knowing full well how he behaved to her have called her a monster for what she did in that moment. They belittle her, they celebrate her suffering, they gaslight her, they spit at her and slander her to everyone who will listen. The months go by with all this going on and finally she finds herself at the first day of trial. The prosecutor stands up to make his opening remarks and he too celebrates all the abuse she has endured. He says how she deserves it and brought it on herself, tells lies outright lies about her, belittles her and calls her a monster to the jury.
It's now time for her lawyer, her advocate, to make his opening remarks. He stands up and walks across the court room to address the jury. But just as he's about the make his opening remarks the magistrate (judge) interrupts him.
"Do you condemn the actions of the defendant?" the magistrate queries the lawyer for the defence, whom looks puzzled and shocked by the question. "I see some people who have condemned the actions of the defendant and I have great respect for those people. So I'm wondering if you condemn the actions of the defendant " continues the magistrate.
Taken aback the defence lawyer addresses the magistrate and tries to reason with him regarding all that she has endured at the hands of her husband. The magistrate won't have it and insists that the defendants actions must be condemned by her lawyer. The defence lawyer will not lament, the question sounds insane and unjust on it's face so he continues to try to reason with the magistrate.
Frustrated that the defendant has not been condemned, he turns to the prosecution whom had just previously celebrated the actions of the abusive husband, that she deserved it and the magistrate says "you condem the actions of the husband, right?"
Immediately the prosecutor puts in his most fake smile and says why yes, of course I condemn the actions of anyone who harms someone that did not deserve it"
"See..." says the magistrate turning once more to the defence lawyer "he can condemn the victim, why can't you condemn the defendant?"
The magistrate calls up the family and friends of the defendant one by one and holds them each in contempt for association. He says they will not see food, nor water, nor the outside of the prison until they too each condemn the defendant and help to convict her.
I wonder, do you think the woman in my story acted in self defence? Do you believe the magistrates question was just, reasonable or logical? And what of the language in the prosecutors reply?
All zionists are not Jews, all Jews are not zionists. Suggesting otherwise is antisemitic. Condemning zionist on the other hand is not.
It is against international law to allow the occupier to settle in occupied territories and any such illegal settlers are considered COMBATANTS NOT CIVILIANS under international law.
A people under occupation have a right under international law to resist, including through violence. All combatants, which again include illegal settlers are fair game to their resistance, and where the occupier uses civilians as human shields collateral damage to the occupier is to he expected in such resistance.
Collective punishment by the occupier however, that is not legal. People whom have complied with the occupier, who have not resisted, can not be held responsible for the actions of those whom do resist nor tortured until they renounce those whom resisted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@someguy4194 SARS-COV-2 is not related to influenza. 🤦
Where enough people are vaccinated it is no* longer a problem. At 80% 12+ fully vaccinated we see case loads significantly reduce.
At 90%+ vaccination rates we see case loads flat. At 95% total population vaccination rates we expect to see eradication.
Mate you're way out of your depth here. We don't have to go far to see just how much higher vaccination rates effects outcomes. Denmark is 80% 16+ vaccinated, their case load is tiny despite no restrictions. They will see a rise in cases because there's so many unvaccinated left in total population, but it won't be anything like as bad as Germany is already seeing and will see going forward. 63% fully vaccinated in the 16+ range means only 49% of total population is vaccinated. That's not even half of the country.
Germany opened far, far too soon. Period. They need to go into an actual lockdown which they've never done and stay locked down until vaccination rates increase to 80% 12+.
They need to enact the basics, like mandatory vaccination in key frontline professions, such as health, law enforcement, emergency services, utilities, hospitality and retail.
And when the restrictions do lift, they need to be limited to only those who can demonstrate full vaccination.
If you don't want to roll up your sleeve and do your bit, that's your choice. But you shouldn't benefit from society if you aren't willing to uphold your responsibilities
Edit: Fixed typo
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What choice is that @wlonsdale1 ? If you genuinely believe that stopping a website from tracking you is as simple as saying no to tracking you don't understand how online tracking works.
What Apple are talking about won't genuinely effect privacy, nor will Google's version of it that they've been progressively building on since 2015. Both Apple and Google themselves harvest your personal signature (ie. basic information, character traits, behaviours, routines, psychology, etc).
The internet is designed on purpose to not be private. When it was originally invented it's currently usage and uptake were never envisaged. Think of being online as standing in an open public square with lots of other people around you and when you visit a website it's like walking into a business, house or other building sitting along the edge of the public square.
When it comes to tracking, think of it like every website or app you use getting an employee to hold your hand and go with you everywhere you go from that point forward, radioing it back to the business.
What Apple and Google are suggesting is that you should be allowed to decide if that analogical employee holds your hand while they go around with you. What they're not suggesting is they have any way to stop that analogical employee from following you without holding your hand.
They're using pretty words that consumers will eat up, to sell their product at a time when sales are at an all-time low. You are no more private than before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
These are very lofty jdeas, which are evidently cherrypicked by someone who has never known totalitarian rule. We need only look to Palestine, to Myanmar, to see what happens under totalitarian rule.
Based on this video Palestinians just need to protest, refuse to obey and create a society underneath their totalitarian colonial state of Israel. But they've been doing those things for 75 years, how's it working out for them? Myanmar has been doing the same for almost as long. Can you name a single totalitarian state that was overcome by civil disobedience? 😂
The nature of totalitarian states is brutality, they will label all those whom oppose them a terror¡st threat to peace to have everyone else cheering their execution. Totalitarian states will beat, break and destroy people and things to garner that compliance.
Counter culture social structures does not deter totalitarianjsm either. Indeed, more frequently it is the source of totalitarianism. The PC movement started as a counter culture movement, that grew and informed additions such as critical race theory and what is colloquially referred to as wokeism. We've gone from togetherness and fighting against segregation, to a movement in popular mind fighting for division and separation. It's all swings and round-abouts.
As the movement has grown over the decades it has become increasingly violent, nasty and extreme in the enforcement of its ideology. This has caused a growing number of people to submit. The capture of the universities allowed the ideology to creep into every major social structure in society and take hold. To create a new normal. Anyone who does not agree is labelled a "far right extremeist" by their second prize capture, the media.
There's a reason discussion of civil disobedience is allowable, and why peaceful protest is legal. They do not threaten in any way, the powers that be. Those things which do work are illegal even to talk about. One only needs to look to the history of what kind of revolution fell every totalitarian regime in history. It starts with a v, and no I don't mean vendetta. It only works when the masses are sufficiently disillusioned so as to at least not interfere.
But there is a problem with all of this, it's one highlighted by Russian and Ukrainian culture. It isn't by accident that the fall of totalitarian communism left those in organised crime or connection there to running things. Who in every day society are the masters of hiding their activities from the state, whilst also being strong enough and rich enough to oppose them in any meaningful way? Organised crime. Whenever you start any kind of opposition to an established totalitarian regime you inevitably must make a deal with organised crime for their assistance. I don't think that gets talked about anywhere near enough in any of these essays on lofty ideals.
Freedom isn't free. It's purchased in lives through a deal with the least savoury in society. This is the real reason the masses comply. They aren't willing to pay that cost or make that deal. It's far cheaper to comply.
2
-
2
-
There is no such thing as "a living wage" and frankly the concept is ridiculous. Particularly when you take living costs from a developed country and try to apply them to a developing country.
If you paid all the workers in India based on yankvillian standards of living, you would be creating the highest paid people in india by far. The AVERAGE salary across India is 30K rupee per month. That's $358USD a month. You couldn't live on that in a developed country, but in a developing country like India things don't cost as much so they can.
But you wouldn't just be completely destablising the social fabric of developing countries like India. You would also make clothing unaffordable. If that previously $30 T shirt suddenly cost $120, we aren't just talking about your individual lifestyle being impacted at that point. We're talking about the erasure of the middle class and the expansion of mass poverty. You already have people having to choose between rent and food, you want to turn that into a trifecta where they have to choose between rent, food and clothing instead?
It might be an uncomfortable reality for you, but ALL civilisations since the dawn of humanity were predicated on the exploitation of another group.
There is no utopia where everyone can sing and dance under rainbows. That's not reality, not under any economic system or real-world social conditions. Humans aren't built that way. If you had the option to live in a luxury mansion with Butler service or live in abject poverty which would you choose? Be honest with yourself. That's why utopia isn't real.
The problem isn't fast fashions goals. The problem isn't even their labour solutions to meet a price point. The problems are
1. Value proposition
2. Consumer behaviour.
The latter I didn't hear mentioned even once in the video. It was danced around talking about the number of garments purchased per year, and the thrown away garments in Chile. But it was never directly addressed despite being the most important.
Do you know why fast fashion do the things they do? Because it makes money. But that money doesn't magically appear out of the ground by doing some ritual. No, they make a product consumers en masse want to consume and gladly part with their money for.
If you want higher quality clothing, put your money where your mouth is. Only buy high quality products. If that became the trend of the masses, the companies would have no choice but to adapt and comply. That's how this works. All the problems in western society ultimately come back to the support of those things by the masses.
Oh, and you can still buy the 2000s quality jeans. They just cost the price of inflation, so they're now $750.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Imagine trying to suggest that because something went wrong in orbit calculations on a single mission, Roscosmos is somehow no longer a major player or leader in space exploration. 😂 How can Cathy sit there with a straight face and say such dribble?
There are already a large set of international rules (such as the UNOOSA) to govern how space and the moon are utilised. If anyone in the CH4 production team had even done a cursory web search they'd have found the relevant treaties so Cathy wouldn't have asked about a need for governance and lost all credibility in the interview.
Of course Yankville want to impose greater rules on space that favour themselves. So do China. Neither will sign up to the other.
The only apt and interesting point Prof Falco had on this matter, was the entry of private corporations into space and exploration. Space and the moon are considered the similar to international waters. Whilst existing countries can't claim territory in space or the moon, and you can't purchase such territory either, what is important to understand is that just like in international waters nothing is stopping a third party non-governmental entity from creating a new claimed sovereign state. Private corporations heading into space are by no means limited to those from Yankville. There are private corps doing this activity in Russia, China, India, Japan, Germany, the UK, S. Korea, Australia, Brazil, France and Yankville.
The race to the lunar south pole is about resources. H3 to be specific. At an estimated USD value of $1.14T per ton, a regular supply of H3 would solve nuclear fusion and the clean energy problem. Whoever controls that supply gets a big seat at the big boy table. It's why everyone is going back to the moon.
Hindu extremist India controlling that would be a huge upset to the world order. But a private corporation holding that power would end the world order altogether.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@UmairAslam1996 That's not something you can, nor should, seek asylum for.
Again, not liking a law is not what asylum is about, nor is asylum about harbouring criminals from prosecution. It's about providing sanctuary from persecution.
To have a valid asylum claim, an official group in your origin country has to be attempting to kill or detain you indefinitely based upon protected grounds.
Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
So, if for example the SDP decided that it was going to give life imprisonment to all members of the AfD for their political views or even just for simply running against the SDP then members of the AfD could seek asylum in other countries.
Or if Germany decided everyone who was atheist had to be killed, German atheists could seek asylum.
Being unable to legally say a word or phrase is not grounds for asylum.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sure @greenteadisease . The first problem is that you didn't actually link to any papers. Instead you c&p a snippet from Wikipedia (or some other text) then dropped in some of their references with the links removed. That makes actually reading the references much more difficult, especially on mobile.
Once one actually gets to the papers you find out that they either have very little, if anything, to do with Atrazine or they are statistically irrelevant with critically low numbers of participants. Some are even both with one paper enrolling just 3 child participants, none of which were exposed to atrazine nor was any information relevant to atrazine involved.
The text is bias, it had a foregone conclusion then set about trying to find papers to try and make it seem more legitimate than it actually is.
The reality is, we simply do not know what, if any, effects atrazine has on the human endocrine system. That knowledge gap caused Atrazine to be banned in the EU, because in the EU if you don't know then it's scary and needs to be banned.
But in other countries such as the USA, that knowledge gap has caused a more reasonable response with RUP status being implemented meaning those using the product have to wear serious PPE. Testing has also focused on the amount making it into food stuffs, which as I previously mentioned is so small as to be near nonexistent.
That humans aren't exposed to atrazine makes any even unknown side effects to exposure irrelevant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@igorsmolinski3346 Russia didn't occupy Crimea. Crimea VOTED by referendum to join Russia.
That happened after a US sponsored coup that saw the members of the democratically elected government of Ukraine killed or run out of Ukraine into exile and a new pro west puppet government installed.
There are key members of NATO who do not want Ukraine to join. There's a reason Ukraine moved military assets from across Ukraine into the Donbas and along the Russian border, then Ukraine's president is doing a tour of western Europe, exclaiming how Russian troops in a defensive position are "a danger to all of Europe" whilst talking about their NATO membership.
The news media keep talking about "Russian separatists" but what they are really talking about is the overwhelming majority of eastern Ukrainians who are dual citizen Ukrainian/Russian, simply do not support the coup government and are disinterested in joining the west.
A better analogy than yours would be, imagine if Trump supporters stormed the Whitehouse and congress, killing or exiling everyone in the building, then installed their own government. Then imagine in response California decided to nope the heck out, secede, leave the USA and be independent. And in response Trump decided to take California back by force, so he built up troops along California's border and tried convincing Canada that California were a risk to them because they want to defend themselves against Trump...
In that scenario you'd be making excuses for Trump, and I'd by trying to explain to you that California just want to be free.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Injudiciously You've gotten a little confused too, bit like the little Koala. It's quite interesting that so many people don't really understand how the Westminster system functions but are all too eager to act otherwise.
You are correct that the UK has no formal constitution, however it does have a series of documents passed through parliament that collectively amount to a constitution. It's why the UK is correctly called a constitutional monarchy.
The UK is not actually a democracy however. The house of commons was created to prevent a repeat in England of the revolt that took place in France. The Westminster system rigs the game so that the house of commons have no real power as a way to maintain the monarchy and it's power whilst pretending to the masses they have a say.
The Magna Carta is better described as a gentlemanly agreement. There many times since it's signing that Kings have disregarded it. All legislation and agreements in the UK only exist so long as the monarch entertains them. At no point has the crown relinquished power.
All of the lords and land owners from magna carta became peers in the house of lords, their descendants continue the system today.
Nothing from the house of commons can pass without first the consent of the peers in the house of Lords and then the consent of the King. Nothing is law without royal ascent, which is a fancy way of saying the King signed off that he's ok with making that thing law.
It is important to understand that just because Elizabeth never exercised her power during her reign, she always held an unlimited veto, as does the King today. Monarchs are sovereign, that's just a fancy way of saying they are indistinguishable from the countries they rule over and their inhabitants. The King is the UK, it's what gives the royal family immunity from prosecution.
The King is the FUNCTIONAL head of state and no prime minister becomes prime minister without first meeting with the King, being interviewed by the King, and the King saying s/he can be his prime minister then inviting the prime minister to form a cabinet. Remember the formal title for the UK prime minister is his royal majesty's prime minister, as in belonging to the King.
The UK is objectively a sleeping dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. The Queen rubber stamped things, the King may or may not. Regardless, they retain the power to refuse legislation, to create new legislation from nothing and to order the house of commons to debate a thing. The Lords too retain the ability to force the house of commons to pass legislation.
The UK has never been equal, it's always been the rich ruling over the slave class. It remains a serious crime in the UK to talk about republic or to talk against the monarchy. The UK simply does not have the freedoms the rest of the western world enjoy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This bloke is naive in the extreme. "The west" aren't "in denial" as if we can not see or comprehend what's happening. We know. The UK and Yankville are DIRECTLY involved in the planning. There are reports yankvillian soldiers are INSIDE GAZA.
They aren't in denial, they're involved. Complicit. They taught Israel how to act this way. They know what's happening better than we do because they helped plan it and they're thrilled it's happening.
I understand that it's hard to wrap ones head around how western leaders, particularly the UK, can be so callus. And we must remember its the UK who created Israel, the UK who support Israel greater than any other country, and the UK holding yankvilles leash.
But listen, there are many benefits to the west for creating and facilitating Israel. As with most things there isn't a singular reason to do it, but multitudes, and different segments of western power are influenced by their specific mix of benefits.
The christian zionists, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the western world, want the return of their prophet and their rapture. The
Jewish zionists, an extremely influential lobby group in the western world want the return of the messiah and heaven on earth. Failing that, they want to dominate the earth
• The defence contractors get to not only make billions in guaranteed sales (Lockheed Martin has made $30 billion off this round in gaza alone) but, and a warning this is disturbing, they get to field test their newest offerings on living people and get real time data back. Indeed, these companies are involved directly in many of the assaults, they're in the C&C getting real time information so they can improve their products. Gaza is neither a prison nor a concentration camp, it's a weapons testing range.
The capitalists get a disorganised middle east with endless in fighting that guarantees the west can stay in charge and exploit resources for cheap. What do you think happens to the middle east when the west completely switches to renewables and no longer needs its oil?
There is so much more. Every power group is western society is satiated on Palestine.
The only people in the west who see the plight of Palestine and care are the ordinary working class, but they're also the group with the least actual power.
When it comes down to it you have to understand that the flowery words western leaders use, like human rights and rules based order, are merely sweet smelling weapons. Tools to forever keep you under their thumb and justify your annihilation.
There is talk about how people are waking up this time. But what people? What good have their protests done? What power do they have? The biggest lesson for Israel throughout this round is that they don't have to hide their atrocities, because there is no one with any power standing in their way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@silver silver She did ask about where her parents are from. She asked where her ancestors are from. Those questions were apparently offensive.
Let's be abundantly clear here, Ngozi Fulani was at the event as the representative of Sista Space, a charity she formed with a fundamental focus on ethnic heritage. You could say ethnic heritage is a cornerstone of said charity as it excludes people whom do not meet the ethnicity requirements.
In that context she was asked by an interested party, whose job it is to relay information about guests mind you, what her ethnic heritage is. Instead of answering the question as someone proud of their heritage might, she decided to play games then complain on twitter and to the news.
This woman who makes ethnic heritage her entire identity, was apparently offended someone asked about her ethnic heritage.
Nationality is not race. There is no British race, that does not exist. Race is ethnic heritage from a historical and genetic perspective. Racism is the discrimination or prejudice towards someone based on racial factors, or their exclusion based on the same. Asking about ethnic heritage is not racism, particularly when the person being asked makes ethnic heritage such an up front part of their outward identity.
Running a charity that excludes people based on race however, well that by definition is indeed racism.
Btw, have you even considered how she has a word for word script of what was said in a private, face to face conversation at a total charity event? Have you considered what that means about her intent?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rossn646 Vaccines do not cure already infected people. The way to stop spreading the virus around is to not spread the virus around.
No one is magic, this isn't a movie where a vaccine is discovered and immediately everyone is saved. This is real life, the vaccines have to be manufactured, QC'd and packaged in their factories. They're subject to physical reality, they can only go so fast.
It will take until April or May before the factories are even in full production cycle, they have to make sure everything is safe and the production lines can take it before scaling up. It will take 12-18 months to get everyone vaccinated, that's been known by everyone concerned since March last year.
Then in 2021 we have the gen2 vaccine rollout to take care of all the strains that weren't covered by this vaccine generation. Those vaccines are already in development, and will take another 12-18 months after release to vaccinate everyone. And depending on were we are with strains after that we may need a gen3 vaccine. We'll know more on that next year.
What I'm saying to you is, these restrictions and lock downs will be a thing until at least 2023/24. Be patient. Stay home unless you absolutely must leave your home. Socially distance. Wear a mask, a proper mask not one of those fabric things. Practice proper hygiene. Stop trying to have large get togethers, it's really just household members mostly for now.
The more people fight this the longer it will take to end this. Just get on with it so it can end faster. Settle in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tipsy Bass @ tipsy bass Wow, what a ridiculous lot of disjointed terms thrown together in the most absurd way. Ad hom straight off the bat followed by literal nonsense.
Your sentence structure, forming and information are all atrocious.
My original comment was just a series of factual corrections not a jab at you. I've been in medicine for 17 years, have epidemiology experience, public health education including correction of mistakes in comments is literally a part of job.
Could I have put in more effort to the original comment, sure but really those corrections should be enough for you to bother to investigate further or clarify with me.
You're online mate, you have access to the collective knowledge of all of humanity and you didn't even bother to look up what you're talking about before you replied. Instead you let your insecurity at being corrected force you into the rambling mess you call a comment. Let me guess, you're still in high school.
Here's a new set of corrections for you;
The changes do not take place in a host cell. The changes are physiological changes to the spike proteins on the virus itself. These physiological changes bring new characteristics to a virus and how in engages both with host cells and the immune system of the host.
Contrary to your claim, an electron microscope does not view things at the *cellular level*. A standard optical microscope is very capable of doing that. I'm sure everyone here at least remembers viewing onion or plant cells under an entry level high school optical microscope in grade 7 - 9, depending on the country they live in.
An electron microscope, as the name suggests, uses electrons (electricity as opposed to the light used in optical) to bombard a sample and form a image at the particle level.
We are not looking at omicron under electron microscopy to determine changes to its protein structure. 🤣🤣
We use genome sequencing. In a report, sequencing displays DNA pairs, or RNA typically as lines or letters which correspond to proteins in the structure. Sequencing to 100 pairs was completed when SA reported Omicron (B.1.1.529). I have a copy of the sequencing for omicron sitting on my desk.
Viral load is not a term which describes a cell exploding. Viral load is simply the term used to describe the amount of virus in a host. One needs a big enough initial viral load in order for a virus to successfully replicate. Limiting the ability for a significant enough viral load to be acquired is how social distancing and eradication through vaccination (colloquially so called "herd immunity") works.
Apoptosis (you didn't even spell it correctly) is preprogrammed cellular death. That is to say, it's a condition where a cell dies purposefully. It is a mechanism by which your body controls cellular growth, division and discards unhealthy or unwanted cells. Where apoptosis fails, we see tumour growth. That is to say failed apoptosis is a primary factor in many cancers.
Some viruses absolutely do hijack apoptosis by various mechanisms to replicate, however that is in no way specific to omicron and is not indicative of the changes present.
The way HIV hijacks apoptosis is very different to the way coronaviruses do.
I'm sorry that your uncle has HIV, but that does not excuse your distribution of misinformation. You acknowledge that you're not an expert, so perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions through insecurity in the future you might consider that a stranger correcting you might be an expert as in this case, and enquire further.
2
-
2
-
Democracy requires a particular environment to function. It requires a civilised people, free from tribalism. It requires an independent free press that the citizens trust. It requires a cultural and societal desire for representative governance. It requires an understanding and engagement of civic duty by the citizenry, and it requires candidates open to serve the interests of their community over themselves.
Democracy looks nice on paper, however without the right environment it just makes far more problems than it solves. Many countries simply are not suited to democracy, and I'm not sure why we in the west keep pushing them to become something they're not suited to.
Even some western countries like the USA, with their distinct lack of civilised masses, dependence on tribalism, PR firms pretending to be news media and criminals in office for themselves instead of the society have ceased being suitable environments for democracy.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. In many places dictatorships simply work better while the society and culture evolves into a civilised place capable of democracy. You can't rush that, and trying to only creates problems.
The unstable countries of Africa, would do much better with a monarchy of dictatorship that all the tribes respected, than the mess they have trying to shoehorn in democracy.
2
-
2
-
Actually @joelfaustino7846 I am very close to modern education. I head an NGO that has programs inside schools and among other things lobbies on behalf of education funding in several countries.
You, and everyone else, are arguing that the internet can be a useful tool in education. That is strawman because I'm not claiming the internet cannot be a useful education tool.
The claim was made that the internet is a PILLAR of education. That means the internet is foundational, that providing education rests on the internet and without the internet, education, schools, can not teach students...in Ghana.
A country where as of 2018 statistics on 82% of the country had access to electricity at home, let alone the just 18% of the country with internet at home.
There is a vast gap between the internet being a useful tool, and something essential to education. Schools can, and do, in fact teach students to a high quality without internet access.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wattlebough roflmao
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
You can try to deflect your Sky News watching all you like, but when you sit there espousing the same nonsense they come out with it's very obvious.
No, Taiwan is not nor ever has been an independent country. Formosa, what Taiwan used to be, hasn't been an independent colony since 1856. The UN and Australia officially and unofficially view Taiwan as part of China. Period. No one of merit in Australia is talking about interfering in what is the remnants of the Chinese civil war.
Taiwan has taken their status to UN tribunal many times and has always lost. The world has no interest in an independent Taiwan. Even yankville for all their posturing have no changed their official stance on Taiwan being part of China. Yankville don't want an independent Taiwan and when asked to support a Taiwanese bid at independence in the UN last year yankville under Biden refused. As have every one of his predecessors.
What yankville want is for the CCP to not get hold of advanced semiconductor foundries before the US-EU alliance on semiconductor production bears fruit. It's an economic policy, no country is actually going to start a war with China (who at this stage have military supremacy) over semiconductor competition.
It's all about sabre rattling on both sides to stall.
If you read my comments properly, it should be clear to you that I am not pro China. I'm pro Australia and pro reality. I'm pro an independent Australia. That's the only independence we should be concerning ourselves with achieving.
Acting as if China are a bigger threat than they are only inflames a situation that doesn't need to be inflamed any further.
We need to push back and defend ourselves, but we shouldn't be doing the same kind of meddling in Chinese affairs that we're pushing back and defending ourselves against from China.
And we should be pushing back against the identical meddling in Australian affairs from yankville. We shouldn't allow ourselves to become yankvilles errand boy. Nothing good can come of it and they'll drop us as soon as we're no longer useful.
We need to focus our efforts and energies on becoming a strong, independent Australia able to defend ourselves and our way of life on our own.
And we need to accept the realities of the situation we find ourselves in. Our economy is interdependent on China. Literally the price of coal and iron ore from China are fueling the CoVID recovery. Without that our economy would immediately fall like a house of cards into recession, and from there potentially into economic depression.
Meanwhile all the sectors China has placed tariffs on Australian good, ALL OF THEM, yankville immediately swooped in and filled the market gap. They're benefiting from the hostilities they told us to have with China. We're being played.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jaakkokorhonen False. You still might be a troll, but you've made clear you do understand vaccination.
All vaccination does is identify the target pathogen to the immune system. It can do that in many different vectors but they all simply tell the immune system to look out for the target pathogen. All vectors are safe and do not run the same health risks associated with simply acquiring the infection, although depending on the vector may result in limited symptoms associated with the target pathogen.
Your immune system does everything else. It's somewhat like getting the infection but because it's designed specifically to stimulate the immune response it's dramatically more effective and overwhelmingly safer than having been infected.
Antibodies in your immune system look out for the target pathogen and when exposure occurs destroy it before infection can take place. Sometimes however for a range of potential reasons the antibodies may fail to "notice" the initial load from the pathogen and infection can take hold.
This is what is called a breakthrough infection. Our SARS-COV-2 vaccines were produced for the Alpha strain. Each successive variant, of which there have been 109 total and 5 of concern, have had a greater rate of breakthrough infection when compared with the Alpha strain due to genetic variation.
Our SARS-COV-2 vaccines are extremely effective at preventing initial infection with Alpha and different degrees effective against other variants. However right up to and including Delta, they remained 92% effective at stopping initial infection.
Where breakthrough infection occurs antibodies and t-cells attack the virus quickly which prevents serious disease.
With omicron there were 32 mutations on the spike as it was allowed to run rampant in an unvaccinated HIV positive man. This gave the virus enough time to evolve to our immune system and allows it to more effectively avoid our antibodies. All subsequent variations that descend from omicron will have this mutation.
Because of the ability to avoid detection by our antibodies, a two dose vaccine regiment only provides 25% effectiveness (1:4) against omicron breakthrough infection. A booster shot increases that effectiveness to 67% (2:3).
When you mix vaccination with infection we see improved immune response above either alone.
However in all cases immunity wanes after some time, 4-6 months with SARS-COV-2 specifically unless the immune system is stimulated to continue to target the pathogen.
What the guy you were quoting was suggesting was that exposure to SARS-COV-2 in the environment after a booster may be sufficient to adequately stimulate the immune response and keep breakthrough infection low.
Unfortunately in reality it's a bit more complicated than that, especially as greater circulation will only speed up mutation and will shorten the time before we can expect the next variant of concern. As omicron has become so dominant globally it's highly probable the next variant of concern will evolve from omicron and thus bring those antibody evasion mutations along with it.
That next variant will lead to greater breakthrough infection until a new line of vaccines targetting omicron is developed which pfizer say they'll have ready by April. A booster specific to omicron will provide enhanced breakthrough protection not only against omicron but against it's immediate variants.
All of this could have been solved more than a year ago if during the alpha wave the entire world worked together for their own benefit and adequately suppressed the virus in a united strategy. Then if everyone got on board and quickly vaccinated so that 95% total global population from 2 years old up were vaccinated then this pandemic would be over.
Not live with CoVID over, over over as in eradication. All the people acting like a holes protesting lockdowns, refusing vaccination, acting like looney tunes and preventing governments from making the kinds of health decisions necessary are the reason the pandemic continues and omicron exists.
If everyone just sits down, shuts up and gets on with what has to be done then we'll get out of this thing. Otherwise, expect to wear a mask every day of your life for the next decade or more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Samir Dončić It actually has everything to do with Ukraine, specifically the violent 2014 coup conducted by organised crime.
They cut the Biden family into their oil & gas business, a business that depended on the Donbas region to make the kinds of profits promised.
It isn't a coincidence that for years Ukraine didn't make the kinds of moves it's trying in the Donbas, then 2 months after Biden takes office, Zelenskyy orders 50K troops into the Donbas and the Russian border.
The intent was to take the Donbas by force through killing even more civilians in the autonomous region. That's men, women and children whose only crime is not wanting to live under the authority of a criminal gang who overthrew the elected government and forced their way into power.
Russia responded with 50K troops and a stern finger saying don't do that. Biden jumped up and down, and Zelenskyy went on a tour around the EU with a scare campaign about the "Russian threat" if Ukraine isn't part of NATO.
Without NATO Ukraine has no chance of winning in a war over the Donbas if Russia chooses to defend the region. But with NATO membership Russia suddenly would have to consider all the NATO member states.
Yankville can't simply help Ukraine without violating international law. This is not genuinely about NATO membership, it's about controlling a oil & gas rich region so that a crime lord and the Biden family can personally enrich themselves.
This year, Ukraine increased troop numbers again and Russia mirrored the increase. At the end of April the weather makes military action in the region difficult and highly risky. If this can all be held in stalemate until then, it will die down for another year.
Literally anyone else in the yankville presidency and none of this would be happening. Some EU states are on board because Zelenskyy has promised cheap oil & gas solving the rising energy problem across the EU and shedding some of the reliance on Russia for energy.
This is all openly, publicly and independently verifiable fact. All of the presidential decrees and orders are in the public domain. The shares registration is in the public domain. The reporting from last year and from the 2014 coup are all public domain. Who Zelenskyy is and parts of his prosecution record are in the public domain. The civilian deaths in the region, and interviews with people living in the Donbas are all publicly accessible, as are satellite images that show exact and explicitly what's happening.
Biden and Zelenskyy should be prosecuted
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I was pleased to hear Christian admit that Rhetoric is made up nonsense. So why then does he and his colleagues at CH4 continue to push rhetoric?
This video really was an absurdist, rhetoric filled, jump up and down activist piece. ITVhave a piece out today about a family in the UK being evicted from their home every 8 minutes and you're here crying about Sunak giving people 5 extra years before they're forced to buy an EV? Which mind you will give the automotive industry the additional time to get H-FCEV infrastructure in place and rolling along so people aren't wasting money on worse environmental technologies like battery EV.
I enjoyed that as much as you tried to rig your little poll and present it out of context it simply didn't swing in your favour. And I do mean little with a statistically insignificant sample size of just 2K people. I had to laugh when you followed it up with a man on the street bit and everyone asked whose job wasn't directly linked to renewables say it was perfectly fine and they didn't see a problem. Then after 3 of those people in a row your reporter goes "and there are millions of voices just like them all across the nation." 😂 Well yes, there are. Millions who don't see any issue with this, because there simply isn't one.
Does Christian not realise that an exemption from being FORCED to do something, doesn't mean you can't CHOOSE to do it anyway? I ask because he seems to believe that people will have extraordinary gas bills because of an exemption and they won't have a remedy.
No one is stopping anyone from buying an TV, installing a heat pump, or doing whatever other nonsense you want to tell yourself is going to have an impact as the population continues to grow. Companies already having made large scale investments aren't going to suddenly shift course because the plan has been graduated with a 5 year buffer. The ONLY thing that has changed, the ONLY thing, is the date things are forced to take place. And the ONLY reason for anyone to be upset with that is if they concede that the average person, the majority, are not on board with or do not have the means to, meet those targets.
How does someone having to use a food bank to scrap by paying their exorbitant rents or mortgage payments, afford to buy a AA powered vehicle that will be a paperweight in 6 years anyway? How does someone choosing between heating and their medication afford to change their boiler?
It's unrealistic pie in the sky nonsense that will not solve the problem. The science has been clear from the beginning, and there is clear scientific consensus on this today. Climate change, along with many other problems we face globally is caused by an artificial population boom that has extended many times beyond our populations natural limits, and ONLY managed depopulation can solve the problem.
Net zero, which is NOT actually zero it's just creative accounting, is just an ever moving target in the race to the bottom. The official global population target is 1 billion people, and it has been since 1964. STOP HAVING CHILDREN.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, DNA evidence is also as unreliable as fingerprints. The NAS has a whole report dedicated on why DNA evidence is also junk science.
The reason this stuff is admissible is simple. Lawyers and judges aren't scientists and often aren't scientifically literate. The job of prosecutors and police is to close cases. Higher the profile of a case, the more pressure there is to close it. Police aren't special magic people that can see into the past, they don't know who did a thing anymore than anyone else does. But they have to close cases or they get in trouble and eventually lose their job.
So with the expectation of cases where the perp isn't obvious and clear to the casual observer, they just throw shit against the wall until they believe something has stuck enough to get a conviction. Actual guilt is irrelevant, it's all about closing cases.
Or it goes the opposite direction and they become emotionally involved in the outcome and develop tunnel vision for someone they want to be the perp. Again, actual guilt is irrelevant they feel they're guilty therefore they are and the case becomes about reverse engineering evidence to prove themselves right.
But mostly it's because of the social outcome. If you told people the truth, you know what, all these things we call evidence are actually bullshit. We've actually got nothing, we don't actually know who murdered those girls or robbed that store or whatever and actually we have no way to find out either.... If they came out and said, hey you know want we don't know what's going on anymore that you do, you think anyone is feeling safe day to day? That society functions after that? That people keep their jobs or politicians stay in power? Of course not.
Most people in the back of their head know this stuff has to be bullshit. It only takes slightly more than a passing thought on it to realise just how crazy these claims are. But people believe them, because they want to believe, they want to lie to themselves that we can somehow make society safe. That we can make life "fair" and there are consequences to people who break the rules. But if the lie were true, none of the people in power right now would be in power. They'd all be in jail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheGwenewier Oh look more cherry picking. 🤦🤦 You've made it very obvious that you've just read some antivax articles and not the actual study.
Upon reading the study abstract the first thing of note is it's methodology, which simply checks whether cases continue to rise after a mask mandate without taking into account actual mask utilisation, nor the type of masks being worn.
It then concludes because cases continue post mandate, masks must be ineffective. This is in actual fact not only a terribly designed study, it's conclusions are a logical fallacy.
Upon venturing beyond the abstract into the full study, it becomes immediately clear from the politised ranting about "what we were told" that it was disingenuous from the beginning.
Perhaps a sociological experiment to see how the antivax people take up hyperbole, perhaps just an antivaxxer going off. However given the study notes in passing a difference between a cloth mask, a surgical mask and a N95 respirator suggests at least some intellectual competence.
That you're not even intellectually honest enough to discuss the differences is masks is most telling.
I'm not sure you even understand how masks function, let alone the differences in them, and the diverse set of variables at play. Masks act like a sieve, the size of the holes determines what will be trapped. Like a filter you're putting on your face.
SARS-COV-2 has a particle size of .125µ so respirators with larger holes will be less effective. That's why 3 layer cloth masks see a 26-30% effectiveness, but surgical masks jump up to 61% effective and N95 masks are 89% effective.
Ventilation, air filtration and proximity to others, duration of wear, temperature will all impact effectiveness.
P.S. You're using the term ad hom incorrectly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As an Australian with no skin in the game, I think the issue here is ignorance about the words being used and not the intent of the words.
I humbly suggest that the INTENT is to have an uplifting song that recognises "black history" and makes people who need it, feel more equal. Consider it an affirmation. Such an INTENT can be unifying.
The execution, however, was to call such an affirmation a "black nation anthem" and, in so doing, undermined itself. Anyone who understands what the words "national anthem" mean knows that's a nonsensical description. In an environment of high sensitivity, using such an erroneous descriptor is divisive.
It gives the impression to those who understand the words being used that a cohort wish to separate themselves along racial lines and form their own nation through secession. Whilst I'm sure a small minority of such people do exist, I don't believe that was the actual intent here. I again humbly suggest the intent was to describe a song to unify and uplift a racial group. I suspect that is what Charlemagne is attempting to communicate, yet lacks sufficient vocabulary to articulate it. Charlemagne appears to be making the argument that this is a song that acknowledges the complexities of the past elevated on a national stage (ie. It's sung at important domestic national events) makes him feel like his grievances with the past are taken seriously and presents an opportunity to heal. That I would suggest is where he comes to "if you don't like the song you must still want slavery". The latter, of course, is its own logical fallacy. However, it makes much more sense as I've contextualised it.
I suspect when those who gave it such a nickname say "national," they mean the "black" collective as a racial group affected in a historical context but don't have words to express that. Potentially, I could be wrong and it's simply a cynical attempt to use a word to elevate the song in importance. I don't believe the latter however.I feel all parties should be met with good faith until they demonstrate otherwise.
I strongly believe this is a misunderstanding based on the erroneous use of a word. The result of poorly educated individuals being elevated into positions they have no business being in on merits, and not understanding the significance or meaning of the words used.
I think the problem arises because words have defined meanings not just whatever you feel and not everyone seems to understand that anymore. We see it regularly in online conversation where people use words inappropriately to form seemingly nonsensical sentences then brush the onus of interpretation off to the reader with "you know what I mean". This is what happens when the education system is not adequately designed and supported. It's what happens when the average IQ of a nation is allowed to drop from the global average of 100 down to now 97.3. It's what happens when the correct use of words as unifying labels for communication is not taken seriously or taken for granted.
Replacing the word "national" with "american" seems as though it more or less would scuttle the controversy and allow for healing to take place. Calling it such would no less mean it could be sung at domestic national events. Yet such a change would acknowledge the importance of the national anthem as the singular unifying song of the nation.
2
-
2
-
Those are some very pretty words @magepie2824 however they miss the mark entirely. Clark starts this video describing precisely why he gets his predictions wrong, and it has nothing to do with dreamy eyed nativity. In fact the only reasonably correct genuine prediction he makes is that his predictions will be incorrect.
The hope you speak of didn't possess but a single generation, it is the force behind every inventive field (even those destructive by nature) and the seeking of knowledge from the inception of our species through today and far into the future so long as humans may still exist. It is also the very same force that creates what you describe as an opposing pole, but is in reality one and the same.
When the atomic bomb was created the program wasn't envisaged to merely destroy, instead it's entire purpose, just like the invention of TNT a century before, was peace.
Hope for the future and a desire to use technology to ease suffering is an inherent trait of humanity. The Greeks didn't invent utopia, they just gave it a name.
These are not forces which caused Clark to get his prediction wrong, at most they are the reason he didn't stand up and declare there would be a great war or an extension of famine in the future.
No, he gets his predictions wrong because however much you might like or admire him he is merely a man. As a man he is limited in scope of the future by his knowledge and experience of today, and too by his imagination. That is why Clark and all others whom try to predict the future fail. There are simply too many variables to consider.
It is the identification of these missing variables for which this thread is concerned.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dystopian literature, particularly those from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was not fear. They were political discourse, warnings of the dystopia that already existed. An attempt to wake civilisation up. They are all universal in their discussion of a dystopia as something that the reader already lives in. That is wasn't announced and that everyone living in a dystopia felt things were just fine.
What these novels, and later films, attempted to do is reframe everyday actions through the lens of reality, absent the propaganda of the elites. But people didn't wake up. They didn't revolt as hoped. They didn't understand the works themselves. Any discussion of dystopia online invariably results in a chorus of people who either have never read 1984 or who simply didn't understand it, claiming 1984 is "almost here". Seemingly unable to get passed the thinly veiled plot device of "the future" to understand it was a book about Orwells present at writing it. 1984 isn't random, it too is a thinly veiled code that the book is about 1948. The year it was punished. It's telling you about the political situation in post WW2 1948. You've never in your entire life lived outside the dystopia. Never.
What has changed is the elites in charge. There has been a silent war behind the scenes on who our elites will be. Where once our elites were the people, and the health of society dictated their legacy, now we have corporate elites. Their legacy, their measure of success is no longer the health and happiness of society, but the wealth such a society can generate for them. This is a transition that is still very much in play, the war is still ongoing. There is room still for civil pushback. But it's unlikely to occur in any meaningful way.
If Huxley telling you about mass birth control from 1931 doesn't wake you up, nothing will. Under corporatism, the worker is merely a drone whose psychology, thoughts and senses are to be hacked to produce a sea of individuals that thinks it's their idea to live as drones.
That's the change you're noticing. Society isn't shaped towards children anymore because millennials and zoomers never grew up. Keeping adults in childlike states, reliant on the system for basic tasks makes them easier to control, easier to extract wealth from and assists in population control.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm sure when each of us were teenagers we knew at least one kid who shoplifted at some point. Did those kids spend 20 to life in jail? No? Do you know why? Did you know it was usually a store employee who caught them and stopped them?
Petty Larceny (Shoplifting under $1000) has ALWAYS been a class A misdemeanor in new york. That did not change. As a class A misdemeanour in new york it is punishable by community work, fines or up to 364 days in jail even today. The punishment is decided by the judge, if the prosecutor even brings a case.
This is where the problem is. The LAWS HAVE NOT CHANGED. There is a change in POLICY at the DAs office and the local judges where they have decided they just won't prosecute. The DA won't charge people, the judges won't impose appropriate sentencing.
Arrests go nowhere because the DA and the courts make it that way. This leads police to throw their hands up and not even bother making those arrests many times now.
Then you have the BLM mentality where they claim "retail theft is reparations"
So, you can fix these issues tomorrow if you want. Recall the DAs, replace them with DAs who want to prosecute crimes, all of them.
A DA doing there job will be able to identify courts not doing theirs, so those activist judges can also be removed and replaced with real judges. You aren't helpless, you can fix this.
Long Island has the same laws on the books and they still make arrests and prosecute so they don't have the same issue.
So the question is really, why HASN'T NYC fixed these problems? It's a question of will of the people, not ability, because you have the ability.
Edit: P.S. Remember, back when the world wasn't run by activists we called "loss prevention officers" security guards... Remember that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
CoVID-19 was not lab made, grown or trained. Period. It is a naturally occurring novel virus.
There's nothing to hold China accountable for. They adequately suppressed the virus in their country and have kept on top of hotspots. So they aren't contributing to the variants.
They also are very willing to share their vaccines, 5 different ones currently under accreditation review with the WHO, with the world.
You know who we do need to hold accountable? Every country that hasn't enacted adequate suppression strategies. USA, EU, UK, Sweden, Brazil, India, South Africa, I'm looking at you.
And we also must hold accountable every country hoarding vaccines, which is the same group minus Brazil.
Trade Embargoes on them all until they act to suppress the virus and stop the production of variants. That means boarders closed and their populations locked inside except for essentials until their virus count reaches zero like it is in every rational country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The antiwhiteism doesn't exist in countries where whites hold no social power. It only exists in countries where they do. It isn't really an attack on whites for being white, anymore than what happened in WW2 was really about jewry. What it actually is, is an attack on the power structures that exist and those people who hold such power in an attempt to seize control.
What we are living through is ultimately a continuation of the zionist project from the mid 19th century. WW1 & 2 were part of this project, as was the hippy movement and the soviet era. With the collapse of the USSR in the 90s, we saw socialists redirect their efforts into social justice and ESG. They started to realise somewhere in the early 20th century that the worker wasn't interested in being their slaves and that workers inherently have more in common with employers than with socialists. So whilst they weren't fully convinced the worker couldn't be manipulated they did start projects like the womens sufferage movement, race based movements, etc. By the 90s it had become clear that the worker wasn't going to defect so they moved further towards these social justice, environmental, racial and other such causes. ESG was born of it. They worked to burrow themselves into centres of power such as educational institutions, large corporations and government, using neutral sounding ideas like ESG to implement socialism over time.
That's the ultimate cause, their socialist utopia. Nothing else matters to them, it will all be fixed in their utopia.
So it's not really about hating whites, even though it appears to manifest in that way. It's really just about getting you to move out of the way so their new governance can take over, and creating a situation of peer pressure to aid in that outcome.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Theme parks aren't using water to randomly pour into something unnecessary, that water is being used by guests. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the water a city uses in a single hour.
This new trend from the have nots that they should blame the world's problems on those more successful than them is frankly idiotic.
It's all about scale. If 1 person uses 10,000L of water that's not a big deal. If 10 people use the same amount that's a bigger deal. But if a million people use a tenth as much, they're collectively exceeding the former group by 10,000 times.
As with all major problems our species and our environment face, the problem is the global population. It can only be solved by people agreeing not to have children.
Not only do all the people consume water directly, but all of the industry, theme parks, agriculture, etc you're trying to blame this on use their water servicing those large populations.
By the way, growing a single avocado takes approximately 320L per fruit and almonds take even more water. All of the trendy vegan foods also happen to be the most water intensive crops. Indeed many of them are more water intensive than producing meat.
This insanity has to stop. The global population is 8x larger than the theoretical maximum natural population of our species, and 16x larger than any naturally occurring population boom our species has ever experienced. Our populations can only exist in this artificial population boom levels as a result of all the harm we're doing to our environment. That is all the things you're rallying against at the very same things that allow these population sizes. Wake up.
2
-
Partisan politics is almost never helpful and similarly almost always counterproductive.
I know you probably don't want to hear this, but the genuine reality is inflation globally is high right now. There are international factors at play here some of which a union lile the UK has absolutely no control over. Yankville's fiscal policy for example, international shipping backlogs or global supply shortages caused by the Chinese economy remaining shut in pursuit of CoVID zero. Those things contribute in no small way to global inflation and cost of living increase.
It's not all out of control however, there are certainly UK domestic factors that have contributed. Blame for example is constantly thrust upon Russia, but Russia isn't actually doing anything to increase inflation or energy prices (gasprom has in fact lowered prices for many of it's customers). The reality that neither side of politics want to repeat, is that it's the bipartisan backed UK foreign policy of SANCTIONS against Russia and the onflow of them, that are blowing back onto the economy
Whilst Russia grows it's economy, the UK and it's allies grow poorer as a result of those sanctions.
But other domestic policies have contributed to things getting worse than they otherwise would have. Many of these things are structural to the UK economy brought in over successive bipartisan governments. Some, like this insistence in more government debt through borrowing makes inflation worse even if you follow the nonsense plan the Labour front bencher was reciting.
So too does lifting wages and benefits make things worse. The whole point of getting inflation under control is to pull cash out of the economy and increase foreign investments. Inflation afterall is the devaluation of currency. When you increase wages quickly to try to counter that rapid devaluation you make the problem far worse. First businesses struggling in and of themselves have to raise prices again to pay those higher wages, but also it causes even faster devaluation of currency so in actual fact that pay rise made you worse off in cost of living than before you got it. Maybe you get £10 more a week, but your expenses went up £24.50 a week across the economy to pay for it.
Even more insidious is that raising wages to combat inflation turns inflation structural. That is instead of dropping off next year as currently predicted, if all these unions currently striking for pay rises get their way then even higher inflation than today will be with the UK right into the middle of the 2030s. So next time you see a union boss running his mouth about how the workers need to strike for better pay, smack him in the mouth and tell him to shut up because they're making the problem significantly worse.
High inflationary events always mean some people will go under. Trying to raise wages to combat it just causes more people to go under than otherwise would have.
The UK is currently financially insolvent. If the UK was a person it would be declaring bankruptcy due to overwhelming debt. As a nation it's like the impoverished people channel 4 keep plastering over the screen. Services need cutting and restructuring, there's no more money to give. Services like the NHS are trying to do far more than can reasonably be funded.
The horrible truth is neither party have a clue what they're doing nor have a decent plan to get out of this mess. There's nothing united, in the United kingdom and that's the real problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The east coast of Australia, and the west coast of the Americas are opposing ends of the same climate system that goes through an 11 year cycle. In Australia, we experience that cycle as drought (fire) and flood. Southern California experiences something very similar.
It is so disheartening hearing people, especially politicians and journalists, claim localised events, even if they're weather events are somehow climate change. They aren't. Ever.
I know climate change seems like this nebulous thing, but it's a physical process. That is, the physical climate systems sitting in the atmosphere are SHIFTING, physically moving, over the earth. It's happening slowly. But it's happening.
One simple way, that obviously doesn't cover all the nuance and details, but might help people visualise and understand climate change is to draw 4 squares next to each other. Put a coin in each box. Now move the coins from their starting box one box over in an anticlockwise direction. Now imagine those coins are climate systems, and those boxes are spread out over a sphere. Tada, that's climate change. Yes, there's more than 4 climate systems. Yes, it's a little more nuanced than that and you also have supersaturation, but for the purpose of people understanding the high-level concept, that works.
Now as you can imagine, whilst that slow shift of climate system weather patterns will gradually change, it also won't magically create isolated, localised extreme weather events.
It's also important to understand the difference between climate change and anthropogenic global warming. They are definitely connected, but they are not the same thing. AGW used to be called the greenhouse effect. It's average surface temperature. It too cannot create isolated, localised weather events. They can increase severity of weather already in a region, but they don't spawn weather randomly in one off, highly localised ways.
We can't ever solve climate change and AGW if people don't understand what it actually is and it just gets turned into a nebulous boogeyman.
For the record, the primary factor from human behaviour influencing AGW, and climate change, is population scale. All things are about the scale with which they happen and the density of that scale. If you have an aquarium, the smaller it is, the more work you have to put into maintaining the water parameters, and the slightest addition can throw things off wildly. If you have a massive lake or an ocean, they can absorb more before parameters are affected. The same is true for people and our behaviour. If you have a small number of people, supported by a population appropriate level of industry, no problem. The planet can absorb that and heal itself. When you have an extraordinarily large number of people, 8x the theorical global maximum and 16x the natural maximum, and you try to support those people with industry, we have a problem. The problem isn't the industry, it's the number of people.
That's where the anticivilisation nihilism comes from. People misunderstanding, thinking that climate change is made by industry (created by whites) and misinterpreting the population problem. So you have bored whites, who have everything, suffer nothing, have no struggle, have no competition, have no excitement, and heads filled with misunderstandings. Self hatred is the result.
Depopulation isn't racial. Industrialisation isn't a dirty word. It's ironically the solution. Because Industrialisation is where we will find the inventors of the next economic system. One that doesn't require perpetual grow to sustain, but instead thrives on population stability. Then, when there is a market driving force at a global scale for population stability at 1bn globally , we will see real work on climate change. It doesn't work unless EVERYONE is on bored, and the developing world are the biggest contributors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Joe, you think they're thought police now? Wait until they can literally read your mind.
Worst idea, ever.
Lying isn't the problem, people pretending their morality is better than someone else's morality in support of tribalism is the problem. And it's been the problem for the whole of human history.
Name a legitimate war that doesn't boil down to "our morality is better than their morality so our tribe is justified in their violent action".
You want to change things, you don't get Elon Musk to pay some actually intelligent people to make a way to read people's thoughts. That'd lead to the darkest time of human history.
Instead you stop acting as if someone being offended is a valid thing that has to have lip service paid to it. And in turn, you don't get up on a high horse and expect times when you feel offended should be taken seriously by anyone either. Delegitimise the taking of offence, call it out for the whinging that it is and ffs close down twitter. That's the end of the morality police. If people like Joe and his guests all of whom have massive platforms delegitimised the taking of offence the tide could meaningfully shift. If enough people say being offended doesn't matter, it's just whinging, then it will be socially true and everyone else falls in line.
That's how this actually gets solved. And ffs stop playing lip service to words and phrases you "can't say anymore".
P.S. there is no word or phrase for crazy that isn't offensive anymore because the very notion of calling something crazy is offensive to those who virtue signal for mental illness. They believe that by calling something or someone crazy, regardless of the word you're using to imply that, is disparaging of mental illness.
And it is disparaging of certain types or symptoms of menta illness, but that's the whole point of saying it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@huddynccc Yes, the police officer died, yes a dozen security guards and police were injured. A person is DEAD over this. Their family, their children, will never see them again because some consumers got mad with a brand instead of just changing brands.
You don't appear to be understanding the hypothetical about Morrison's. I'm saying regardless of your emotional attachment to soccer, they're actually just as inconsequential in your life as Morrisons is. That it's as pathetic as protesting or rioting over Morrisons adding a new location. You have no actual say, nor should you.
If you opened a business, would you think your CUSTOMERS had due cause to physically protest a change you decided to make with regard* to YOUR business? Let alone to do so physically during a GLOBAL PANDEMIC?
It's not YOUR team. The team belongs to the Glazier brothers. The team, as all teams in the league, is a BUSINESS designed to make PROFIT from CUSTOMERS in exchange for entertainment. Your relationship with Man U or any other club, is one of a consumer and nothing else whether you like it or not.
You need to find something else in your life, things to put this into perspective. Because right now what you're saying is very sad and out of touch with reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I believe Facebook has the potential to bring out the best in us" - Frances Haugen
Facebook is an advertising company, it has no such potential. Saying Facebook has the potential to bring out the best in us, is like saying ads on TV have the potential to bring out the best in us if only they'd stop trying to sell us something. Or like saying heroin has the potential to bring out the best in us if only it wasn't so addictive.
The undesirable part of these things are their key component.
Asking Facebook to stop using EBR as Haugen suggested congress do, is like asking VW to stop putting wheels and a steering wheel in their vehicles. YouTube does the same thing with how they surface videos.
I watched the whole of this hearing, time and again it was individual senators starting off their question period by talking about legislation they have already introduced into the house, legislation that often had nothing to do with what Frances Haugen had expertise on, then either asking a series of side questions (most of which Frances Haugen wasn't qualified to answer and she said so) which amounted to making a case for the bill to be passed, or outright just explaining the bill to her and asking if congress should pass it.
Often the bills directly competed against one another. There wasn't a whole lot of actual testimony going on, and what little testimony did occur was mostly speculation not first hand account.
Essentially Frances Haugen as a disgruntled employee downloaded some documents off the Facebook employee intranet that had nothing to do with her job or her expertise and took those documents to the Washington Post to ask if there was a story there. So a Washington Post journalist sat down with her and they read through the documents, made interpretations on those documents and that's the whole story. She's testifying not on first hand insider knowledge, but on what she read in documents that anyone in Congress can now read making her testimony meaningless.
Stop using these platforms, believe it or not you don't actually need these platforms to communicate with friends and family, there's a plethora of services (including the ones that come with your phone plan) to do just that. Friends and family are not a valid reason to stay on these platforms.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carljohnson2194 Please don't move the goal post nor put words in my mouth. i never said anything about being justified and never would because what is and isn't justified is subjective and relative to individuals based on perspective and self.
What I said is, if a government does something inside it's own borders they're *allowed* to do it regardless of what it is and no one else is allowed to directly intervene. That's international law and fundamental and foundational principle of the UN Charter.
Intervention can only occur when countries do something to others outside their own borders.
So if a government wanted to kill all of it's own citizens, other governments could decide they don't want to do business with them anymore but that's it. They couldn't do anything to actually stop them, and there's plenty of real world examples of that.
Your own subjective values, morals, ideology, thoughts on "fairness" and whatever else belongs in that list isn't the only nor "right" version of those things. Because there is no "right" version.
So like it or not, the Tatmadaw, who are constitutionally the government of Myanmar and have been since 1959, have absolutely every right to shoot as many of their own citizens as they like for whatever reason they want.
And they have been doing so since 1959. Indeed shooting all the citizens of ethnicities the Burmese didn't like is entirely why the Burmese put the Tatmadaw in charge back in 1959.
You can't ignore decades of genocide then expect to be taken seriously when you're upset because the Tatmadaw start also shooting some Burmese who are attempting an armed insurection against the government.
You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept that they get to play by their own rules and you have no say
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@franciscouderq1100 I'm sorry but no. Your meme reply is an embarrassment. The people at the top aren't the problem. The entire system as it's currently set up and the services it provides however are.
A reformed NHS will mean the average citizen will pay an out of pocket fee to see a GP. Some services, such as dental, will need to be scrapped altogether for all but those on the lowest income bracket. It's going to mean a complete restructuring of how hospitals operate.
But amongst all that, with a few exceptions, the people at the top aren't going anywhere. They're at the top for a very good reason, they need to be there to make things work.
It is untrue that they're "all financiers". None are. Some are business/economics people, but others come from healthcare and facilities. Running even a small medical clinic isn't just throwing endless money at people's problems until they get better. It's using a finite amount of cash in the most efficient and effective way possible to achieve the best outcomes possible in that funding level.
Currently the NHS is stretched too far for the funding it receives to provide quality care. However that funding is already several hundred million pounds too much and in a context of a bankrupt economy that is aging. The country has a £500M deficit in the annual budget, that means the country has to borrow money just to pay for existing services.
That's happening in the context of an aging population, that means there's more older people whom need health services and far fewer young people paying taxes than necessary to finance it. Those people whom are paying taxes are paying exceptionally low tax rates too.
The reality is the UK in it's current state cannot continue. Regardless who gets in at the next election reforms across all services and the tax code are coming, they have to in order to avoid economic collapse. That's going to mean higher taxes, services delivery in very different ways and some services either no longer available or user co-pay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whoguy4231 This is completely false.
Feed in tariffs are where the energy retailer pays the small time generator for feed in. From Energy Australia
"Feed-in tariffs for renewable energy pay for excess electricity generated by small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) or wind power systems. The amount paid varies between different retailers and can be compared using the Energy Made Easy website.
...
Feed-in credits or payments you receive may have implications if you receive any Centrelink or other benefit payments, they may also be considered as assessable income by the Australian Taxation Office."
And from the AERs draft legislation you are referencing.
"The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has released draft guidelines for consultation that will govern how distributors should develop and justify two-way export tariff proposals.
The AER is required to make Export Tariff Guidelines under the Australian Energy Market Commission’s recent Access, pricing and incentive arrangements for distributed energy resources rule change. The rule change aims to facilitate small-scale solar into the grid and support the growth of batteries and electric vehicles. It also allows the ability for network energy businesses to propose two-way tariff pricing that may only be implemented following approval from the AER"
They are not proposing a minimum fee to the consumer to have solar or wind connected to the grid, at all. They are seeking to create national guidelines for energy distributors (most of which are owned by states directly) on how they go about crediting and charging small scale generators. The entire point of the draft guidelines (which as guidelines would not be legally binding) would be to incentivise the entrance of small scale generators into the market, such as farms, body corporates and neighbourhood co-ops. That is, it's guidelines on how distributors will pay them for the electricity they generate and how they can be incorporated into the generation model for the distributor.
Again, as guidelines participation is voluntary. Additionally, as it's a federal agency creating the guidelines their application is furthermore subject to states agreeing. Our constitution does not allow for federal regulation of electricity, that's a state issue and every state with the exception of NSW & Victoria is very different to each other.
Edit: So again, the likelihood of Queensland, Tasmania or the NT requiring residential premises with wind or solar generation to allow the distributor to remotely control batteries or feed in is so remote as to be practically zero. The likelihood of states (or even federally, although unenforceable) requiring residential premises to pay a feed to distributors for having solar installed is likewise so remote as to be practically zero.
The bi-partisan national energy plan created just last year calls for decentralization of the energy grid through residential generation, along side more small scale generators such as farms, body corporates and neighbourhood co-ops. The draft guidelines directly reference the national energy plan 2021 continuously throughout.
We are nothing like shitty yankville, and we sure as heck don't have things worse off here. We are objectively the best place to live in the world, at least currently. Labor might change that over the forward estimate.
2
-
@whoguy4231 I don't think you're even understanding what I'm saying to you. I'm not disagreeing with what the draft guidelines say, I disagree with YOUR interpretation because you are objectively wrong..
From the AER explanation document which accompanies the draft guidelines
"On 12 August 2021 the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) published its final
determination on the Access, pricing and incentive arrangements for distributed energy
resources rule change (the rule change).6 The rule change aims to integrate distributed
energy resources (DER)7
, such as solar panels and batteries, more efficiently onto the
electricity grid. See Box 1 for an explanation of DER.
Previously under the National Electricity Rules (the rules), distribution services involved one-
way flows of electricity imported from the grid for consumption. The AEMC’s rule change
updated the rules to clarify that distribution services can be two-way. That is, they include
both the ‘import’ of energy from the grid for consumption *and ‘export’ of energy, such as
rooftop solar, to the grid."*
Export tariffs are NOT where a consumer pays, it's where a distributor pays. The export tarrifs you're talking about are discussing how distributors will compensate small scale generators
Furthermore and for the last time;
* Guidelines are not enforceable because they have no legislative basis
* The federal government does not control energy regulation, that is constitutionally a state jurisdiction. It makes sense to have federal guidelines for consistency but they're optional and down to states to sign up to.
* These guidelines come as a direct result of the bipartisan national energy policy which set out the direction of energy infrastructure and policy in Australia for the next 50 years. This policy was decided on as a joint initiative of the federal government and the states, and sees an emphasis on decentralization of energy generation. As it has bipartisan support and is agreed between states and the federation, it's exceptionally unlikely the new Labor government will change any of it. Doing so would require new meetings with states whom would be less than impressed and 50% of which are Labor states including Queensland & Tasmania.
* This draft is about getting distributors to agree on how they will compensate small scale generators. That includes detached singular residential premises, but it's real target is farms, body corporates and neighbourhood co-ops where they install solar pv or wind generator systems to such a capacity as to purposefully create a set amount of capacity to export to the grid for profit.
This is my last reply. If you still don't understand after this comment, no one can help you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wy3131 There you go again talking about fiction, and derailing the actual topic at hand.
We are talking about the WHO and the ability for vaccine approvals to mean you're a world power. They don't.
There is no "US-led west". You've been watching too much yank propaganda and taking it seriously. The US are like that kid in school who would make up things about themselves to try and impress others, but really they weren't all that special.
"The west" is a collective term for a set of countries that share somewhat similar (but not necessarily identical) values, ideals, ethics, social rights and responsibilities, as well as views on governance first developed in western Europe during the enlightenment.
Not all western countries are allies with one another, least of all with the USA. Further, being allies doesn't mean one country is leading the other. By western values it merely means you're friends that have enough in common to want to work together on some things and help each other out sometimes. Being allies though isn't an obligation to do something, there's always an element of choice and further there are regular disagreements and criticisms between allies.
Sovereign nations decide for themselves and work together on things they share common interest and ideas in. There is no US led west. That's fiction that I notice China seems to think is real. Things would go a lot smoother for China if it realised the fictional nature of that propaganda.
Back on topic, the WHO is an international medical authority run as an independent organisation by the UN. It is funded by member states but does it's best to remain apolitical. Once upon a time it actually was apolitical but since China joined there has been increasing political pressure on science where no politics should exist.
The approvals process for vaccines is based on efficacy. It's not based on politics. It's not based on rumours or propaganda. It's not based on what a government want the outcome to be. It's simple science, does the vaccine work in the way it says, is it effective at providing protection to a great enough percentage of recipients and is it safe across a diverse group of people.
The point of this story is that China has only formally completed the submission process for it's vaccines several weeks ago. It will not take 3-6 months as a standard procedure to evaluate the efficacy. Delays are a result of China refusing to share the information and datasets required to actually evaluate the vaccine. China can only blame itself for being so closed off and protectionist.
Whether any of the vaccines are eventually approved or not will hold absolutely not bearing whatsoever on the status of China's power in the geopolitical landscape. An approval won't change anything for China, no one will take it anymore or any less seriously.
China has been acting like an irrational, insecure, abusive, aggressive child for a good 7 - 10 years now. It is increasingly becoming impossible to do business with China, because China refuses to act with mutual respect and dignity to anyone. China imagines there is a spot for a country to control all of the countries in there world, but that's fictional too. No country is ever going to give up their sovereign control of their own territory to China.
Many countries wanted to be not just friends with China but very close friends. The kind of friends forged on genuine mutual respect that really help each other out. China has increasingly made that impossible because it sees itself as being infallible, and any criticism as being an attack.
You know that friend who asks if you like their hideous new outfit but if you tell them you don't like it they throw a hissy fit, overreact and don't want to be friends anymore? That's China.
So take your nonsense Chinese propaganda and get lost. No one is buying what you're selling. Vaccine approvals don't make you a world power, that's a ridiculous statement by Ms Chen who should be embarrassed to have made it and Sydney U should send her packing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Large sporting matches create millions in revenue for the host city via spectator spending.
A 1/4-1/2 of spectators will travel to a large sporting venue by public transport for example. That generates large percentage of revenue for public transit that is integral to their operating budgets. Without that money public transport ceases to be a viable service to offer.
A portion of those who drive to the venue will try to get cheap or free parking by parking in the surrounding streets. This generates significant revenue for council via parking fines. An event like this is always part of their enforcement strategy because it's such a large part of revenue. There will be a team of inspectors dedicated to the area who arrive about 30-40 minutes after the match starts.
Spectators overall tend to do more than go from home/office to sporting venue then straight back home. They tend to go from the sporting venue to pubs, bars and restaurants injecting money into the hospitality sector.
As it's a test match it draws in interstate tourists (and usually international ones as well), who spend money on accommodation, restaurants, retail, transport, entertainment, sightseeing, etc.
Large annual events like this test match represent a massive clunk of a states economy, and of a host cities operating budgets.
When QLD took the AFL & NRL earlier in the year they stole a chunk of the economy from Victoria and NSW. Berejiklian was upset over the cricket because she was worried QLD would do the same to cricket.
To be clear, the budget Sydney councils and NSW state government released earlier in the year rely in part on money from these sporting events. Without it, those budgets no longer work and it effects services.
That's why they're so adamant that the test match goes ahead. And why QLD is all too happy to create special bubbles for large sporting matches and host all of the teams.
It's money, but it isn't coming from Cricket Australia. It's coming from the fans.
2
-
2
-
I just want to say that it's quite interesting to see the intellectually dishonest and the paid yankville trolls talking about the Crimean peninsula & separatists in such disingenuous terms.
But ok, you guys brought it up if you want to discuss them, lets. This is the reality.
As an ex USSR state prior to 2014 Ukraine was officially neutral. It is one of many so called "buffer states" between NATO member countries and Russia and that is actually a formal requirement under the North Atlantic Treaty and the subsequent pact with Russia.
As a former USSR state much of the population of Ukraine in 2014 were ethnically Russian, and in many border regions plus crimea the citizens held dual Ukrainian/Russian citizenship.
Crimea was gifted to Ukraine from Russia in 1954 when both were part of the USSR as a show of solidarity. As a result 99% of the population of Crimea are ethnically Russian and retain Russian citizenship.
Everyone was doing fine in Ukraine and it didn't pose a threat to anyone. It was ticking over nicely as an energy transit country between eastern Europe to western Europe. That made Ukraine lots of money, not enough to be a particularly rich country but not a sh!thole either. It was doing well and whilst official neutral,. general sentiment was mostly pro Russian.
Enter 2014. Then Ukraine suffered a coup d'etat at the hands of an organised crime gang. Months of violence in the streets erupted.
As any country would when it's neighbour became unstable Russia put it's military assets on the border on alert. That's no different than what Sweden is doing right now in Gotland.
All the usual suspects entered talks with Ukraine to try to sort the mess out. The then vice president, Biden was put in charge of the yankville committee. In the initial stages you can see in the reporting that it's a passing event, something no one was really taking all that seriously.
Then the gang offered Biden a share in their oil & gas business. Suddenly the coup has western support and the violence escalated.
Seeing what was unfolding and hearing from their concerned citizens in the Donbas region and Crimea Russia started massing troops at the border, and eventually sent troops in to secure Crimea. It held a referendum on secession which had objective oversight and is internationally recognised by the UN, and only opposed by yankville and some of their allies. The result of the referdum was that the 99% Russian ethnicity, dual Russian citizen Crimea wanted to secede from Ukraine and return to Russia. That happened in line with all regular international protocols for secession andi it is recognised by the UN much to the objection of yankville.
With yankville assistance the coup d'etat succeeded. Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced himself president of Ukraine, and he's been so ever since. 7 years, almost 8.
The Donbas region also wants to secede. They're in a similar situation to Crimea in that they're majority Russian ethnicity and dual citizens.
When we talk about separatists, "pro-russian separatists" or "Russian separatists" we're not talking about a trained military force. What we're actually talking about are regular citizens. Old and young. Men, women, children. Ordinary people who do not want to be part of Ukraine under Zelenskyy who they see as taking away their democracy.
Their conviction is so high that thousands of ordinary people, men, women and children have DIED fighting to not be claimed by Zelenskyy. They don't see this as nationalism, they see this as fighting to be free and not to be controlled by organised crime from Kiev.
Their problem is the region in which they live is rich in oil and gas deposits. The kind of deposits that will make Zelenskyy and the Biden family billions of dollars.
So for the last 7, almost 8 years the Ukrainian military has been killing their own people who just want to be free.
Because the region is close to the Russian border, Russia has a standing force several hundred kilometres in on their side of the border as a just in case. They've been sitting there the whole last 7 years twiddling their thumbs.
Russia has not directly intervened in the Donbas, but does sell the separatists weapons. Again, it can't be stressed enough we're talking about dozens of entire cities and towns that want out of a Ukraine ruled by a criminal oligarchy, and don't want to be part of Russia, they want to be autonomous.
In March 2021 things changed. Biden became president of yankville. Zelenskyy has grown tired of waiting. Biden has grown tired of waiting. So Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a presidential order to send 50K troops, artillery pieces, helicopters, tanks, etc from western Ukraine into the Donbas. The intent was to just sweep across the Donbas and take it over.
Russia responded by massing troops. Still many hundreds of kilometres away from the border, but ready if they needed action. They told Kiev that given the people in the Donbas are officially dual Russian citizens they would consider that kind of military action against them as an act of war and would respond.
Enter the tense negotiations through April and May 2021. Both sides eventually stood down but the troops remained. It's in that April/May period that Zelenskyy went on his tour of the EU trying to build fear as a case for Ukraine to join NATO. If Ukraine became a NATO member it could attack the Donbas with impunity because Russia would no longer just be warning off Ukraine it would be having to deal with all of NATO.
This is why Russia is becoming increasingly concerned about Ukraine becoming part of NATO. It appears to be increasingly likely as yankville under Biden is pushing for it despite a decades old security pact between NATO and Russia that Ukraine would be a buffer state.
If Ukraine becomes part of NATO it doesn't just mean that Russia would no longer be able to sabre rattle to protect it's citizens in the Donbas, it means the Donbas could realistically host a NATO military base or missile sites. That's a direct threat to Russia's national security and indeed to their sovereignty. Obviously that can't be allowed to happen, no country would allow that to happen to them.
This year Ukraine more than doubled it's troop numbers in the region, and Russia again matched the Ukrainian forces and waved a stick at them. Enter the current "crisis".
Russia doesn't want war, it just wants Ukraine to not wholesale slaughter civilians in the Donbas who oppose the criminal oligarchy in Kiev just so some rich people can get richer. And it wants reassurance from NATO that it isn't going to expand into Russia's backyard.
Those are very reasonable requests.
IB4 some paid yankville troll introduces the tu quoque fallacy about Russia being an oligarchy too. Yes, it is. Entirely irrelevant.
Edit: I should also make clear that the weather in the region at the end of April / start of May would make starting a military campaign difficult to say the least for either side. So as long as this "crisis" can be held up in talks until then, it'll suddenly stop when the weather changes. If yankville vote Biden out at the end of his term (either by voting in Republicans or voting for a different candidate for the democrats) it's entirely likely these bluffs with Russia will cease.
2
-
@Goblexter 🤦 Nice ad hom morphing into a red herring. Do you have anything of relevant substance to say or are you just going to push logical fallacies with misdirection?
I've stated the objective, independently verifiable facts and timeline. It's simply what has happened and is happening. Nothing more or less.
Your ad hon was so predictable, it told us all who you are. For the record I'm not affiliated with Russia in any way, nor am I pro Russia. Putin has many flaws, and has engaged in many criminal activities. It's just those flaws don't extend to trying to start a war with Ukraine.
I care about truth, as all intellectually honest and capable people do. I'd prefer no country is get dragged into a pointless war with many more innocent people killed and tens of thousands losing their human rights to freedom and self destination just so some muppet in Washington can stuff his own pockets.
The people of the Donbas matter. Their lives matter. Their wants matter. Their human rights matter. The lives of the soldiers in Russia, Ukraine, Yankville, Britain and the EU matter. This whole thing is stupid and needless.
Ask yourself, why are you letting a man who does not care about you, who does not care about truth or freedom. Who swears at reporters, is on record with endless racist comments and supported Jim Crowe, a man who is creepy af about and with children, a guy who is willing to sell the lives of others for a few bucks try to manipulate truth? Why defend that guy? Why support his warmongering?
Edit: I'm honestly surprised you didn't try to call me a communist too. That's always a predictable line from the desperate because apparently they don't understand that my last name is a very common last name for a particular ethnic group. One that makes you a pretty terrible person if you're going to hate on that group and that in reality means I'm a very strong proponent of capitalism. Oh well, at least now I've gotten ib4 someone else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I remember the internet in the late 80s and early 90s. It was great. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.
Sure consolidation is a thing, and so are captive markets. But that isn't why the internet is no longer what those old enough to remember the old internet expect of it. Since the internet became commeralised in 92, it has been transitioning into a background utility. The internet itself has undergone the same arch you are describing. It started off subsidised to increase adoption, and once it reached peak adoption it moved into a phase where front end service delivery became possible. That's why amazon, and google maps and netflix and whatever else exist. They're front end delivery services embedded in the background utility of the internet.
Now these front end services are maturing and consolidating, and we're getting physical service delivery through IoT, the internet is moving towards its final phase of transition into a background utility. I have been trying to explain to people for 30 years that at some point search engines and websites will cease to exist. That won't be the internet anymore except for a very small number of nerds on a dark web somewhere.
The internet will just be a utility you pay for that allows you to do other things. Like watch tv, or turn on a light or drive your car, or whatever else. The information one currently gathers from websites will be replaced with an LLM search summary embedded into a voice assistant. Like what the rabbit R1 promised to be before everyone realised it was a scam.
Go to perplexity (owned majority shareholder Jeff Bezos), right now and you'll see the beginnings of what I'm talking about. You can ask any question in writing or with your voice and it will search the internet for you, then tell you a detailed summary. It's very propaganda heavy, but that's the future.
Apps too will at some point go away. Just one device that interacts in the background with many services and you just ask for things via your voice or thoughts and away you go.
It's also important to understand the consolidation of the internet is in many ways mirrored in reality as the west transitions from free market capitalism towards corporate led feudalism. We can see very tangible examples of this with the "Forever California" (in California) and Prespero (Honduras) city developments.
P.S. The internet post 2005, like most of society is terrible. In 2010 the internet was terrible. All of the things you're complaining about existed then. All of them. You just didn't notice because they didn't directly impact you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cplcabs False. Let's start with your dates. There was never a 3 month gap between the 11 September attacks and entry into Afghanistan. Indeed that length of pause would have made the entry illegal under international law. Entry was made weeks after the attack, not months.
The "coalition" you're admitting to with others IS NATO. The coalition partners responded under the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), and where relevant under the five eyes agreement.
You apparently do not understand what NATO is, it absolutely was involved from the start. The NATO website states that ISAF forces (that's NATO) entered Afghanistan in phase 1 on 7 October 2001, and phase 1 ran until 28 December 2014. Phase 2 ran from 1 January 2015 - 15 August this year.
More NATO forces deployed in 2003, but plenty of NATO forces were already there, and US NATO command was already established under the treaty as an immediate response to the 11 September attacks.
NATO involvement is automatic, that's how the treaty works. 1 member gets attacked, they all are automatically involved.
What you are describing as a "bigger mess" is your political sentiment towards a yankville politician, and nothing more. They released Taliban prisoners in prison for being Taliban, that's to be expected. That's not a bigger mess.
No such message has been sent to the world because there was no defeat. Yankville are still doing whatever they want in Afghanistan. Trying to equate this to Saigon is absolute BS. Clearly you weren't alive then or don't remember clearly what happened. These are incredibly different scenarios.
Moreover, how yankville looks has absolutely fa to do with how big a mess Afghanistan is domestically.
Seriously, know what you're actually talking about instead of just parroting junk you hear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I was under the impression from the internet (I don't live in the UK) that Channel 4 was a public broadcaster paid for by British taxpayers.
But over the last few months of watching the content on this channel, I can't see how that's true.
Everything seems to be dripping with political ideology. From the stories you choose to report (and equally those you don't), to the words and tone used, the angle chosen and the things you include even where they have no relevance.
The tories get reported negatively, labour get reported positively to the point they get softball questions whilst Tories only received loaded ones. Governments should absolutely be held to account, but when you lowball questions to opposition you demonstrate a political bias that should not exist in a public broadcaster. Oppositions afterall are the alternative government and no bills pass without them.
I mean the labour deputy leader was allowed to answer "what would you do about inflation" with "we'd give free school breakfast" and that frankly ridiculous answer not only wasn't confronted but was waved in as if it was a reasonable reply.
Inflation has been utterly misrepresented by channel 4, with nonsense explanations, loaded shock questions, a focus on the poorest of the poor for shock value and an insistence that it's governments fault despite the testimony of impartial guest after guest to the contrary. There is this subtle push in this coverage that Labour would do better as if inflation wouldn't have hit at all if labour were in government which is obvious tosh.
There's the constant characterisation of the war in Ukraine as illegal even though there is no such legal basis for that claim and the UN have been exceptionally clear that Russia haven't done anything that violates international law. It's objectively not an illegal war. Then there's the constant references to inflation being caused by said war, that's untrue. The war could rage on for centuries and have no impact on the global economy, Ukraine isn't that important to world finance. Inflation is being caused by the government imposed SANCTIONS which mess with the global energy market pushing up prices. That's only accentuated by the overspending by governments around the world in response to CoVID and the high demand low productivity that followed. It's not the war that's making prices go up, it's our (the west) involvement in it through sanctions and diversion of revenue into Ukraine at the worst possible time.
This video goes on about Trump as if he's at all relevant and uses the particularly emotive language that democracy was on the line if democrats didn't hold the house. You don't get anymore partisan than that.
There was a nonsense story the other day about Twitter blue ticks. Not like a 30 second filler piece, I full multicross segment because the reporters were pissed their personal words and opinions on twitter won't hold weight anymore.
Everything here seems to be pushing political ideology, bias and tabloid sensationalism. But it's taxpayer funded, so where is the actual journalism? Does channel 4 even employ a single genuine journalist as opposed to presenters and reporters?
If I were a UK taxpayer, and again I want to be clear that I'm not, I would be thoroughly upset channel 4 is allowed to push partisan agendas with taxpayer funds.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I see a lot of people saying they changed their mind on Liz Tuss in these comments. That's unfortunate because it means they aren't really hearing what she's saying. They're just hearing some dog whistles and coming when called.
Play out the scenario that Tuss is talking about here. Everything goes under government, the executive branch have full control over the entire country no questions asked, there's no independence, all the checks and balances are scrapped, appeals are scrapped, and your only way out is to wait for an election and hope enough people vote against the establishment. She's talking a complete fairytale if she things that ends well, just like she did with her economic policy.
What she's saying here is a direct path to an authoritarian state. Let's not forget WHY those institutions became independent of government. To create new checks and balances in order to avoid authoritarianism. To strengthen, not weaken democracy. If there's a view that such organisations are now too powerful to be unchecked by the public, ok. The answer isn't to put them under the control of government. The answer is to build out new processes to make them accountable to the public. Perhaps that means certain positions are voted on. Perhaps that means there's a public recall mechanism whereby positions are granted on merit, but if they do a terrible job the public can vote to sack them once certain criteria are met. Perhaps one of dozens of other alternatives, or even a combination of them.
Liz Tuss lives in a world of her own ideological making, separate from reality where things worked the way she wishes they did. It's no different than the wokeys.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're acting as if the word invasion has only one meaning @gordonstrong5232 when nothing could be further from the truth. From the OED.
Invasion -- in-vey-zhuhn
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun:
the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion
You may wish to pay close attention to definition entries, 3 and 4. Invasion is the correct word.
Now that this ridiculous dispute about syntax has been settled, let's look to the rest of your comment.
You're out here talking about 1.4 million job vacancies, whilst failing to acknowledge the industries and roles these vacancies are in. That's not 1.4M low and no skilled jobs, it's 1.4M highly skilled jobs that require years of tertiary training. A full list of the shortage industries and roles can be found on the UK gov site, but it includes roles like geophysics, civil engineers, health services MANAGERS, veterinarians, orchestrial musicians, etc.
Economic migrants are moving on the basis that their homeland has no economy, and it has no economy because it has no highly skilled workforce.
There goes that notion for needing them. The UK needs more unskilled labour like one needs a hole in the head. That is to say, not at all. But it doesn't just stop there, recklessly throwing open the borders as you advocate would collapse the UK economy overnight. You think cost of living is high under current inflation? You haven't seen anything yet compared to if the borders were thrown open as a grab all.
Try actually understanding capitalism and economics. Immigration managed correctly brings great financial reward to a country, but it's a balancing act. Capitalism demands perpetual growth of population, so managing immigration means understanding natural growth (domestic births) and supplementing the number with well selected immigrants up to the point annual perpetual growth is achieved. Under or over even by a few hundred and you've got economic trouble.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where you even an adult in 1994 @farzana6676 ?
Once more you use chicanery. Your position of perpetual subterfuge is transparent. Who do you honestly think you're fooling?
The Budapest Memorandum granted promises of no unprovoked ECONOMIC attacks, explicitly including the use of sanctions, embargoes or other forms of economic coercion against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine by the UK, yankville or Russia.
Since the 1994 signing of the memorandum yankville placed sanctions and used economic coercion against these three states as follows;
Belarus: 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022.
Kazakhstan: 1995, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.
Ukraine 2012, 2013, 2014
Source of years: US Treasury website
According to the UK department of foreign affairs & gov dot uk, the UK engaged in sanctions on almost all of the same years yankville did.
It's a good thing memorandums aren't legally binding. Meanwhile, Russia has no placed sanctions on Belarus or Kazakhstan. It has placed sanctions on Ukraine but only since 2014 in response to the coup and in the context to a direct threat to Russian citizens both inside Ukraine and inside Russia itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roubaix3843 With chapters in 5 continents, and academic members from a diverse set of fields, I am the head of one of the largest science advocacy non-profits in the world. I am not a lay person and I understand climate change in great detail. You appear to have misunderstood my position. I'm not saying AGW is nonsense.
I'm saying the OP comment is nonsense and is not at all representative of what climate change actually is.
Understanding amongst the general public of what AGW is, is exceptionally poor. Mostly because of ignorant media reports like this one which do not represent climate change accurately.
It's funny that you mention AEMET, that's the source of historical data I'm referencing.
In fact you are wrong when you say the frequency of heatwaves has increased. Heat waves for Spain come in the same pattern that've come in for the last 50 years. The maximum temperature on the other hand has increased 3.6°C over the last 40 years. That's a distinct and important difference.
If you look at my standalone comment outside of this thread I actually break down the historical temperature data for Sevilla over the last 13 years.
It is essential for people to understand that climate change is not some conceptual idea about weather. Indeed it is essential for the lay person to understand that climate change is not weather at all. Climate change refers to physical systems in the upper atmosphere and the oceans that are physically changing; morphing in shape and moving their physical location on the earth. Think of a giant object in the sky, a balloon or cloud larger than Europe, slowly drifting across the sky at a rate of several millimetres to a centimetre a year. Now think of a whole bunch of them overlapping and covering the planet doing the same thing and moving in various directions. Conceptually that's what we're talking about when we talk about climate change.
Whilst it is true that moving climate systems will impact on weather outcomes, that is not indicative of climate change. Nor, importantly are climate systems the sole driver of isolated weather systems.
Weather isn't how we will see climate change as it occurs. Every bit of extreme weather is not evidence of climate change, indeed you can only even attempt to make inferences about extreme weather and climate change through longitudinal data and modelling.
If news media actually reported climate change accurately so that lay people really understood the thing we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of deniers we currently have. But likewise, we wouldn't have the ecoterrorism from XR and similar hysteria driven organisations. We might even be able to have a civilised conversation about AGW.
Perhaps the least covered yet most important driver of the genuine threat of climate change is population scale. Instead we focus on a symptom of population scale, emissions which is an ever moving target that can never be solved and fails to address AGW in real terms. What we actually need is action on population scale. It is necessary that we reduce global population to an 8th of today by 2100 or we're looking at another great global extinction event.
Lastly, whilst I do advise and lobby the UK government, and that does mean I spend time there physically, I am not from nor in the UK.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for demonstrating you have no understanding of business, economics, pharmaceuticals or reality.
Ironically you're becoming the unwitting useful idiot marketing for scam artists. I'm sorry to tell you but not only does "big pharma" make cures (which are highly profitable) it also makes preventatives (which are likewise highly profitable).
Repeat customers is only one business model amongst a mountain of others. A business does not need repeat customers to stay afloat or make a lot of money. Stanislaw Burzynski from this video demonstrates, because whether you like it or not he is running a business. In this video he boasts (as he does to anyone who will listen) that he immigrated with $5 in his pocket and on the back of his snake oil has made a vast fortune in the millions and is continuing to grow that fortune. Indeed he has patents and has fought for those patents in court so profitable is his business. He gets no repeat customers.
But to illustrate this no need for repeat customers more clearly lets go to the extreme. No funeral home in the world gets repeat customers, they're dead. Despite this not only are they able to stay float with regular income, some have become so successful that they're multinational corporations now. Their business works on volume. 100% of people on earth will need a funeral home eventually, everyone dies. But that's not a market base of the 7.56Bn people on earth right now, they only make up a percentage of the market. You see people have this weird habit of making more people, and those people too will need funeral services one day.
The same is true with the economics of a cancer cure. A little over half of all people will develop some kind of cancer in their life time. That's a massive number of potential customers who would pay highly for a cure. But just like mentioned earlier those people will make more people who in turn will develop different types cancers. Some people who develop one type of cancer will also develop another kind of cancer. A cancer cure would be highly profitable, if one existed it would be available.
The thing about cures is, they don't prevent you getting an illness again. Antibiotics are a great example of such a cure. If you get a serious bacterial infection a course of antibiotics can save your life. That doesn't prevent you from getting a serious bacterial infection again in the future. How many times have you taken a course of antibiotics in your life? How many times have the people you know done so? Those are cures in action each time.
The thing about preventatives is, if your product really prevents disease or ill, or your product at very least prevents it to a high enough efficiency, then lots of people will want it. Almost a trillion dollars was spent globally across a couple of handfuls of companies in the last 2 years just on vaccines to reduce the risk of SARS-COV-2. Even more is being spent on improving the efficacy of those vaccines, developing broader use SARS-COV-2 vaccines and on treatments/cures. Almost another trillion dollars globally to be spent in the coming 12 months on these things. Every child gets the MMR schedule, when you're selling to 99% of a population you make a lot of money.
Think of it like this, if everyone on earth has to purchase at least one Big Mac in their life, do you think McDonald's would really care if you came back?
Repeat customers are a business model for businesses with very niche customers that form a small cohort. If my potential customer base is only 20K and only a fraction of those potential customers will actually use my services repeat customers become more important.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What is the "global South"? Is Brazil, a G7 county, part of the "global south"? Is the 10th largest economy (Australia, and one of the most highly vaccinated countries on the planet) part of the global south? What about Indonesia?
Are poor countries with low vaccination rates like Bulgaria, Pakistan and Romania part of the "global south"?
What about Germany itself, where vaccination remains under 80%
Patents should be suspended and it's absurd that Germany blocked that but it was always going to be the case. Politicians have such short terms they can only ever engage in short term thinking ever ready for the next campaign. It didn't help that most western democracies had elections either in 2021 or upcoming in 2022. They've had their economies decimated and economic performance is a key voting subject in every single election, anywhere. Every country is trying to puff up their economies and talk up their economic performance as best they can. For that reason vaccine patent holding countries need that increased GDP.
2023 will be the year to try to get patents paused. That's not to forget that obviously each country is going to look after themselves first, it's human nature and political sui (I can't write the rest of the word or YouTube will delete my comment) to do anything else. So you've got rich countries whom themselves haven't gotten the pandemic out of control and you want them to think paying to vaccinate strangers in Africa? Get real.
Listen, you've got a comments section full of morons who 2 years into a major pandemic are still trying convince people that SARS-COV-2 isn't real and people shouldn't get vaccinated. There's been inequality on every other health emergency throughout history. Most people, politicians included, are short range thinkers. They don't act until the proverbial fire is at their doorstep. Why would anyone ever think this pandemic would be handled differently than any other global emergency in history?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I've been watching you for a little while now, I'm not from the UK. I see a lot of blustering on your behalf. A lot of emotive words. A lot of posturing. But it's all empty. A small dog making a lot of noise, but that's all.
You're not doing anything, and you won't do anything in the future. I think you've realised your own impotence, so now you're turning on your own. What do you imagine poms staying in pom land instead of finding a better life for themselves elsewhere is going to do other than depleat your potential viewership?
So you put out these videos prattling on about "upholding what your ancestors built" without actually doing anything to uphold anything and seemingly without understanding the history, that many fled and came back.
Maybe you might at some point spaz out in the street some time, break some things like a toddler throwing a tantrum. But that won't change anything. You're still going to be living on an island run by pedos in every party, and all the immigrants will still be there to stay. The production base in the UK is eroded, so immigration is the only way to keep the country afloat now. It's bankrupt. The UK couldn't afford to build infrastructure if it wanted to.
You talk about "sorting the country out", but you won't. See the truth is, when I watch your videos all I see is weakness on your behalf. Just hot air. How's the grooming gangs going? Oh that's right, you cried about that for several weeks (not sure where you were all the decades before that), then did NOTHING. You aren't fixing anything mate and you know it. Settle down, you're making a fool of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah this video isn't based at all in reality. Not that these foods weren't eaten, they were. But they certainly weren't in any way a yankville invention.
Unless you're talking about mesoamericans, yankville is a very young country with very little genuine cultural invention. In a cultural context, North America is best regarded as an extension of Europe.
Ham and bacon aren't national dishes of anywhere, let alone yankville. A national dish suggests a dish unique or rare outside of, a particular nation but is common place inside the national boundaries. Ham and bacon are universal joys of humanity that date back to prehistory. So much of a joy are they universally amongst our species that some religions, particularly the sand cults of Abraham, ban their consumption for various reasons.
Eels are fish, and most species of eel do not have the capacity to electrocute anything let alone a person. Those in the electric eel genus aren't eaten. Yes we remember Popeye and the eel gags. Eel has been eaten across Europe and Asia for centuries, and is still widely consumed today. Eel pie is still very much on the menu around the world.
Ketchups, yes including tomato ketchup, were spelt in different ways depending on the region but are loosely based sauces with a fruit or vegetable base. That's why it's officially called Heinz tomato ketchup and not just ketchup, because it's telling you that it's a ketchup with a tomato base. The ingredients you listed are possible ingredients, but the sauce wasn't fixed. The Heinz recipe eaten today dates back to the same period, just with sugars added to adapt to the modern pallet.
Turtle soup is still widely consumed around the world, and certainly didn't have it's origins even in Europe let alone yankville. Seriously mate where do you get your information from? You can't claim to be giving historical information then get most of it wrong
Ambergris is not dried vomit 🤦 Ambergris is a type of mucus produced in the GI tract of sperm whales to protect their gut from hard objects they might eat, such as giant squid beaks. Think of ambergris more like a fur ball but from a whale instead of a cat.
Ambergris is used to enhance fragrances. That's why it was eaten with chocolate to make it "taste" more intense. It was used most extensively in perfumes right into the second half of the 20th century where it became illegal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@harmless6813 Ha. I'm not sure you understood why it's weird.
This is a news story about a single instance where police were shot in Germany. However half the story is spent talking about yankville, and very little time was spent actually talking about the specific incident the report is supposed to be about.
It is weird to try to make any kind of comparison to another country inside this coverage let alone to do so with such hyperbole. It's irrelevant information to the report.
Imagine if instead of reporting on George Floyd's death they mentioned that he died, then asked about reporter how frequent death in custody is and their response was "not as often as in Afghanistan under Taliban rule..." and then started talking about the conditions in Afghanistan. It's a misdirect.
Perhaps it's because yankville has no public broadcaster but I'm not sure you understand what DW is. Public broadcasters (sometimes called state media) such as DW, are 100% funded by taxpayers through the national budget. They exist to provide programming without commercial constraints and with the public interest in mind. The point of a public broadcaster is to serve the taxpayers who fund it. In the case of a public news broadcaster that equates to information relevant to the taxpayers that give a fair and balanced assessment of events with as little bias as possible.
Some other examples of public broadcasters off the top of my head include ABC, BBC, CBC, CCTV, CGTN, CNA, ERTU, France Télévisions, IPBC, LBS, RRI, RT, SABC, SVT, TVP,, TVNZ, TV Basil, etc
P.S. As an aside, your assertion is false. The most prominent examples of excessive gun violence are Yemen, Palestine, Syria & Afghanistan. As well as places like South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Philippines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When writing nineteen eighty-four, orwell was describing what he saw around him in English and US societies, as it was in 1948. As it so happens, without a shred of coincidence the same year Israel was created.
So when he's talking about slogans such as "war is peace", concepts like double think, and the editing of history for political ends, he isn't being imaginative. He's describing western society as it was in 1948. That is to say, Braverman is consistent with how the UK has been since at least 1948. Orwell tells us directly, and indeed his earlier work The Road to Wigan Pier suggests in all probably at least since 1937.
We live in a "western world" dominated by double speak from the political classes on all sides. Left is right, up is down, right is wrong. Yankvillian linguist Noam Chomsky writes quite extensively about it. So one should be entirely unsurprised when they hear peace marches being described as the opposite. The real question comes from motivation.
What do the political establishment, because remember both major parties are in agreement on this, get out of using double speak to squash resistance to gen o cde?
I'd like to call out some double speak from James while I'm here. Describing resistance fighters carrying out a well planned operation in their occupier in the way he as is as insane as Braverman calling peace marches what she has. Who amongst us can say they wouldn't do the same thing if they were faced with an invading and occupying force from abroad, particularly one whom only cared to see your ethnicity erased from existence. As yankville and Israel go to great pains to tell us, there is collateral damage in war. Occupying forces should not expect to be immune from it.
Israel must stop distorting and rewriting Jewish identity for it's own political means. Israel is the home of the Israeli's and only them. The home of the Jews is wherever each individual chooses it to be and not where the zionists want. Zionism is deeply antisemitic by its very nature. Rabbi Yaakov Sharpia speaks quite eloquently on that subject and I would encourage you to read his works and hear his truth. As too does Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons rapporteur to Palestine, and of course Professor Norman Finkelstein whom needs no introduction. Listen to these people, they're telling you the truth, they're explaining why the situation with Palestine isn't at all complicated, and why a UK home secretary might use double speak to describe peace protesters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because;
1. French soil is not British soil. Britain can therefore not do as it pleases, nor can British agents and officials just operate at will on foreign soil. So before we go anywhere, this is far more complicated a solution than any other and would require consistent, ongoing cooperation from the French.
2. There are already existing options for asylum claims to be processed in their home country for many of the most common nations migrant nations. These are not utilised because the way international law is set up, asylum claims have greater chance of success if you travel to the host country than if you are outside their territory. The same is true for Calais.
3. There is no obligation to process anyone not inside your territory. Boats intercepted in the channel whilst still in french waters are already sent back. The goal is to intercept in the narrow transition band so they can't seek asylum and can be deported.
4. Stopping boats on humanitarian grounds is the legal loophole to the UDHR and refugee convention. People making irregular crossings that drown in the channel aren't anyone's problem, those who don't drown are the problem. The goal is to make every step of migration for economic migrants abusing the asylum system as uncomfortable as possible. Please review the Australian model, it's what is being attempted. It works everywhere it is deployed.
5. The Australian model drops attempted illegal economic migration by 3/4. Offshore detention centres are a critical part of the model. They're essentially overcrowded prisons designed to inflict trauma and break their spirits over years so they stop challenging in court and accept deportation to a third safe country willing to take them in, such as Rwanda. As there is no chance of going up in economic status, economic migration stops. In the case of the UK, they'll stop attempting the additional step of trying to cross from France to the UK and instead claim in France. Then it's an EU problem.
6. This is ultimately a problem of an already aging population, and irregular immigration by unskilled persons whom simply have no ability to meaningfully contribute to the economy. Targeted migration is a net positive to an economy, untargeted and unrestricted migration is a net negative. The government extensively need to control the border or things like the number of vacancies in the NHS will only rise as population grows but skilled labour does not grow at pace.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ravenmoon5111 Firstly, the 100K troops on the border only occurred last year. They are in addition to the troops already fighting in the Donbas and came under direct presidential order.
The Russian troops are standing on the opposite side of the border to the Ukrainian troops and arrived after the Ukrainian troops did.
If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance it's a duck. Similarly if it looks like defensive posturing from Russia, and they're saying very straightforwardly that it's defensive posturing from Russia, and there is cause for them to be defensive, then they're probably engaging in defensive posturing.
Secondly, the Donbas voted to leave after the 2014 coup. They don't want to be part of a Ukraine run by a criminal gang from Kiev. Pretending otherwise is false, misleading and intellectually dishonest. Thousands of men, women and children in the Donbas region has DIED fighting for their right to self destination.
The contested area is officially part of the Russian Federation, attacking it is indeed attacking Russia. Ukraine invading it is indeed invading Russia.
What Russia is clearly worried about is Ukraine trying to take the Donbas by force. The people of the region don't want to be part* of Ukraine, let them be who they want to be
For Zelenskyy and Biden this is all about oil and gas, nothing more. They don't care about human rights. They don't care about how many people lose their lives. They don't care about the suffering it may cause. They want to fill their own pockets.
Edit: Fixed a typo
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andreasgregorfrank9057 Except you're wrong on all of your points.
The J&J vaccine uses the same technology as AstraZeneca. It isn't a distribution partner, it outright created the vaccine.
Moderna is the most advanced mRNA vaccine for CoVID-19 which also takes into account multiple new variants. The only of it's kind currently.
Pfizer is much more than a distribution partner, they own a good portion of the patent. Without Pfizer, BioNTech is dead in the water.
mRNA vaccine technology is not new, nor are it's techniques patented. What BioNTech is doing with their CoVID-19 vaccine isn't revolutionary. Indeed during candidate R&D phase there were more than 40 other vaccines using a very similar methodology.
According to the EU, in particular Germany, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine both is unsafe and in far too short supply. You're suggesting it's a solution for poor countries. So either only one of those statements is actually true, you're correct and Germany lied to gain market share, Germany is correct in which case you're a monster or neither statement is actually wholly true...
The actual truth is, both statements are lies.
We're in the midst of a freaking global pandemic, this isn't every nation for themselves. If Germany wants to insist on playing politics and corporate greed with people's lives then perhaps those BioNTech vaccine contracts to countries outside the EU should all be cancelled.
Pfizer is on board for a patent waiver, they always have been. So perhaps if BioNTech don't want to play ball anymore, Pfizer might have to just pull out and tie up the patent.
Germany can't try to grow rich off the suffering of others. That's despicable
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rygar218 You haven't actually read chapter 7 have you?
Chapter VII:
Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression discusses one country acting against another country.
It does not discuss in any way intervention in internal conflict. Nor does the text you are claiming to be quoting appear anywhere in the chapter.
Chapter 7 literally sets out exactly what I have previously said. Please stop spreading misinformation. For transparency here is the full text of the chapter
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
2
-
2
-
@rygar218 The UN is not a government, that's your first mistake. The UN is a forum for nations. That's it.
An ambassador is a government representative. In this case he represents the Tatmadaw. When an ambassador makes a request that is out of line with the government they represent their request is not official.
Before he made his speech 95% of members left the chamber, they knew what he was going to say and they knew it wasn't official. He was then immediately fired and replaced, he now has been charged with treason which it was a clear act of and faces the death penalty as a result.
When he was fired there was a very brief discussion on whether the UN would continue to recognise him as representing Myanmar, the decision was unanimously no.
He is not recognised. He is not the ambassador. He attempted to make the international community complicit in a coup. The Tatmadaw hold power. They've held power since Myanmar independence. The civilian representatives answered to the Tatmadaw, read the Myanmar constitution. They are the supreme authority in Myanmar, when they arrested NLD party members they already had the authority to do so, that's why civilian police arrested them and the military didn't show up in force.
It's also why you see civilian police trying to squash the civil unrest, not military units. The actual coup is being undertaken by the CDM.
These media broadcasts are telling you half truths, and leaving out huge portions of the story to manipulate what you think and keep you watching. The reality of the story is, a dictatorship country arrested some people and some other people decided to try and overthrow the dictatorship. They're failing because they never stood a chance but were spurred on by media for ratings.
Myanmar has never been a democracy and holds little hope of ever becoming one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
False.
Without any legislation Australia has already met and exceeded the 2030 Paris agreement.
What Australia is saying is simple, governments can't wave a magic wand and make climate change go away. It's up to the people (that's you and me) to change our behaviour.
Australia is already a world leader on decentralized electricity generation and roof top solar implementation. It's achieved that using carrots instead of a stick.
The plan is to continue using carrots instead of using sticks to effect behaviour and drive down emissions. To create jobs, opportunities and prosperity instead of ripping them out from under people.
So instead of using a levy to artificially inflate prices so that everyone is forced to consume less use to budget restraint, pushing more people into poverty, Australia will spend money instead.
Schemes like a broader subsidy scheme on renewables that reward industry, commercial and consumers for choosing to use renewable technologies, or build with sustainability in mind, or install onsite water capture and recycling systems, etc.
Australia will invest $30Bn through CSIRO (you know that Australian government research and development agency that's gifted the world everything from power boards to wifi) to develop new technologies that will make industry cleaner.
You know, industry that the entire world has from smelters to manufacturing and cant currently be made clean? Australia is investing huge on changing that.
Australia is investing in subsidies for agribusiness so that those who haven't already converted into more sustainable ventures can do so, and to purchase zero emissions hydrogen powered machinery.
Australia is rewarding people for making good decisions, instead of legislating with a stick to punish people for living their lives.
As a greater segment of Germany sinks into poverty, whilst Australians end up more well off per person you'll see the differences plain as the nose on your face.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ZappayaZappayo Sorry, to be clear I told you that you don't understand false equivalency, and your response was to tell me I don't understand false equivalency, but act as though you have an upper hand 🤦 Are you a child?
Apparently I need to hold your hand and step you through this. I don't particularly expect to change your mind, but hopefully in doing so I can illustrate your error to others and they won't make the same mistake.
First let's define a false equivalency so that everyone is working off the same page. False equivalency takes the form of
Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A
Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal, but only because characteristic B & C were ignored
Or to put that into a sentence, a false equivalency is the comparison of two opposing arguments that appear to be logically equivalent when they indeed are not. Like most fallacies, this is one of degree rather than kind. The order of magnitude can be debated. Some may exaggerate this order of magnitude claiming a fallacy where it would be unreasonable to do so.
An example of a false equivalency is;
"President X orders a military conflict that kills thousands. He is no different than a mass murderer."
In this example both president X and a mass murder share the characteristic that something they did resulted in the death of people. However, the circumstances, the level of responsibility, and the intent are significantly different for the president than the typical mass murder and ignoring these factors is unreasonable, thus makes the argument fallacious.
Now let us examine racial profiling, your claim and the claim I made.
Racial profiling claims that;
Some people of Race A undertake particular behaviour, therefore all people of Race A should be held with suspicion as it is likely they too will undertake the same behaviour.
You have said;
Some police undertake particular behaviour, therefore all police should be held with suspicion because it is likely they too will act with the same behaviour.
Both positions are fallacious; in fact they are both a type of hasty generalisation called unwarranted stereotyping). Importantly however they are both fallacious for the same reasons, are both motivated by the same type of experience, and neither have unconsidered factors.
So my claim is, when you claim all police are something or possess the same characteristics you are using the same fallacious thinking as someone who is racially profiling. This is not a false equivalency because again there aren't any factors that have not been considered, it is just true that both circumstances are hasty generalisations leading to unwarranted stereotyping.
You are right to be mad* at officers doing the wrong thing. You are not right to be mad* at all police because some police do the wrong thing. Engaging in the latter makes you part of the problem.
Edit: Fixed typos
2
-
It's interesting that Zappaya starts by claiming no one wants to read my comment, then immediately goes ahead and demonstrates they have read it. What is that, hope that no one will find out how wrong you were?
It's very funny when someone like you, demonstrated wrong tries to devalue the challenger by claiming the challenge came from Wikipedia (of all places). It's a kind of personal attack whereby you assert that the challenger could not have possibly understood such basic concepts without external assistance.
To be clear, I did not need the assistance of Wikipedia to describe false equivalency. It's quite sad to see such an attempt to save face.
Furthermore, the original claim Zappaya makes is more than police never apologising it's a claim of a lack of accountability, and makes an emotional judgement call on all police.
Moreover Zappaya seems to have failed to understand the point, the behaviour in painting any people based on an inconsequential characteristic as a collective group is indeed the same regardless of the characteristic or the group.
To then engage in name calling and further personal attacks again in some vain attempt to save face is very telling of Zappaya and their argument.
Even in admitting they were wrong, Zappaya attempts to minimise the extent by which they were wrong, despite it being clear minimisation and not intellectually honest. One might even say that Zappaya is engaging in victim blaming, refuses to apologise or be held accountable for their behaviour. Quite ironic.
It is the behaviour and thought patterns that Zappaya has displayed right here in this thread that are the root cause of the problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Alex-cw3rz roflmao, You don't really understand what you're talking about. My analogy is accurate and apt. Here is the econ definition of austerity.
"Austerity, a set of economic policies, usually consisting of tax increases, spending cuts, or a combination of the two, used by governments to reduce budget deficits"
Exactly what I said. I enjoy that you insisted on just calling me a bunch of names, seeking to discredit objective reality. Then instead of giving an alternative explanation to austerity you shifted the goal posts to your personal, and might I say ignorant, opinions on how the UK, as opposed to Argentina which we're discussing, might improve it's economy. Come back when you actually understand what you're talking about
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jack Jones Philippines was a narco state worse than Mexico, being a chain of islands had no effect on that. Physical size likewise isn't a factor of relevance.
Yankville have several pieces of legislation on the books at both federal and state levels that allow indefinite detention of any person(s) that can somehow be framed as linked to terrorism.
This is a really simple concept. Yankville always complain that if they take one drug lord out someone else takes their place. But the only reason that can happen is because they know they know it'll be years before police catch on and decades minimum before an arrest. The stakes aren't very high but the rewards are.
In Philippines what they did was have the military execute anyone suspected of manufacturing, trafficking or distributing, drugs. No trials. No appeals. That has significantly increased the price of doing business in illegal drugs, which in turn has meant no one wants to step into past king pins shoes. No one wants to deal either, because they know what it means.
But most importantly, it's utterly changed the culture from one accepting of drugs to one that no longer does. That's a long term solution because communities that don't accept drug use, are less likely to engage in it.
Mexico export to yankville because there's huge demand. You don't have to solve the problem in Mexico to solve the problem in yankville. If everyone is too afraid to traffick, distribute and deal on the yankville side and demand falls, then the market collapses so the Mexican exports stop, or at least reduce to a trickle.
Now, if yankville don't want to go down that path that's cool. I never said they have to. What I said is this is a choice. The solution is clear. If you don't want to solve the problem then don't solve the problem. No one outside yankville actually care if you solve it or not. But if you're going to choose not to solve the problem, stop complaining about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@主人-v9j That's an intellectually dishonest reply.
The EU and UK still talk plenty about human rights, democracy and freedom. The EU are upset with member states Poland & Hungary because they don't share their view in freedom.
Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ghana, Belarus, HK, half of west Africa, EU and UK are going on about all 3 of those things in these places.
The UK opened it's borders to HK completely, making available MILLIONS of permanent resident visas to people from HK. Way more than any other country on earth.
Yankville is purposefully ambiguous on whether it would intervene on behalf of Taiwan in order to make the use of military force by China less likely.
My country is under Chinese sanctions and tariffs right now because we refuse to stop talking about those things and won't bend to Chinese subversion. Indeed after yankville my country is the most outspoken on Taiwan.
Your indictment of the west is bs.
You're upset that we're not taking action and forcing those things to happen but it isn't our job or our right to do so. We talk about these things, what we hope will happen, what we'd like to see but ultimately it's out of our hands. There is not legal basis, Taiwan is internationally recognised as part of China under UN decree.
We can make suggestions, we can talk, but it's entirely up to you on the action front.
It's also entirely disingenuous to suggest that Taiwan was never part of China. Ignoring the centuries of Chinese ownership prior to the 1895 takeover and subsequent short lived republic, the ROC took Taiwan in 1945 during the civil war.
That's the same ROC who tried for decades to make the case they were the rightful rulers of the mainland and who insisted maps have ROC on Taiwan right into the '90s
If ROC had won the civil war you'd be here trying to convince us that Taiwan was always part of China and certainly had been since '45.
You have to be honest about the situation. Taiwan is part of China, and it will inevitably experience reunification. What that looks like is a matter for negotiation between Taipei and Beijing. But any thoughts of independence need to be taken off the table, no country of consequence supports Taiwanese independence. You are Chinese, your ancestors were Chinese, your children are/will be Chinese. No amount of rebranding will change that.
I'm sorry you're unhappy with your situation, I hope you stay safe and wish you all the happiness possible. I bear you no ill will and hope that some kind of workable compromise can be found.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ardwick-Crome According to the UDHR commission on prisons, the countries with the best prisons are Norway (including iceland), Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Japan and the Philippines.
The Prison Life Index uses 2 UN created instruments and ranks UK prisons poorly across all 5 metrics. Those are genuine experts using internationally accredited instruments to measure and rate. What are your credentials?
It is clear from the evidence that the UK has serious problems in its prison system. Are they the worst prisons in the world? No, but that isn't relevant. The system and buildings in the UK are inadequate, and that needs to be addressed. It isn't fascism, the OP doesn't know the meaning of the word. And it isn't down to just the torries, although they aren't exempt from blame. Wandsworth is a 173 year old prison where prisons have an average lifespan of 50-100 years. It's a century overdue for decommission, and every government from churchill to now is to blame for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@radroatch roflmao. You haven't debunked anything. There is nothing to debunk, a definition is a definition.
Objhectively the convention does not protect against discrimination. Objectively Ugandans born gay do not meet the criteria for asylum. There is no interpretation necessary, it's clear. That's the point of definitions, to remove interpretation from the equation.
Again, the UDHR and Refugee Convention were written at a time where homosexuality was illegal across the entirety of Europe. The purpose* of these agreements was to facilitate the post WW2 fallout in Europe.
Article 1, subsection A of the Refugee Convention (1951) defines refugees.
A. For the purpose of the present Convention, the term refugee shall apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the
Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the Refugee Organisation;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organisation during the period of its
activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of
paragraph 2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons
of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of
his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or
who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
It wasn't until a 1967 amendment that the convention even applied to anyone outside of Europe. Please note the absence of sexuality from the protected list.
Subsection F of the same article states
F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons
for considering that:
(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international
instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country
as a refugee;
(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Under the terms of F-b, having committed a crime prior to seeking asylum (which includes breaking any law in Uganda) makes one ineligible for consideration.
That social attitudes in the UK have changed in the last 70 years is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the refugee convention. To be eligible for asylum you must be either
1. Fleeing war
2. Fleeing specific types of persecution by the state whereby you are in immediate and well-founded fear of death.
The threat of prison time does not count. The maximum penalty stated under Ugandan Bill 3 "Anti-homosexuality Bill (2023) is ten (10) years imprisionment. Time to grow up.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@linkmeforfun I haven't forgotten anything.
China is not a developing economy and hasn't been for 2 decades. No one considers China developing, it's a developed nation. It continues to claim developing status because there are benefits to currency exchange flexibility and trade. The rest of the OECD go along with it because forcing China into developed economy status would lift the price of goods 15% per stage overnight.
7 decades ago China was a dedicated communist wasteland. It remained that way for 30 of those years. The story of the economic rise of China occurs over 4 decades, not 7. It takes place when they start to transition their economy to capitalism and the west takes great interest in the project. They by no means did that by themselves. China was a pet project of Yankville and the UK, an experiment to see how much investment it took to liven the Chinese economy, and what it took to create democracy.
The expectation was that they'd create a massive western aligned yet subservient ally on Russia's border that could cheaply manufacturer goods. They also expected to use China to influence the DPRK into giving up to yankvillian rule like south Korea has.
To achieve that they admitted China into global organisations they did not meet the criteria for. They extended massive credit to China through the world bank and IMF. They both sent people to China to exchange information and opened their universities to the Chinese. They also exported all of their manufacturing jobs to China to create base demand in their economy, but more aptly to outsource poverty to China and be rid of expensive unionists.
China is where it is today specifically because Yankville and the UK wanted it to be. But things got out of their control, China took everything they were given and ran with it to now dominate the global economy.
We also have to remember that it wasn't too long ago that China was a major player in the world economy. It was only due to pandemic, Japanese invaders and the rise of communism that China ever fell out of geoeconomics. So they retained their generational leadership skills.
Leadership isn't just something you do because you want to. It isn't something that's just born of good intentions. It's a skill that takes a long time to become proficient at and the west African countries in question don't have people with leadership skills. Strong leadership is just another thing Africa needs training from external sources in. But the west saw what happened with China, they're not going to make that mistake again.
China know the mistakes Yankville and the UK made that granted it power, so China won't make those mistakes either. Every country can't be rich, that isn't how capitalism works. There are limited seats at the big boy table.
China's interest in Africa generally, is the same as it's interest in South America. It's looking to benefit it's own position by building out alternative sources of resources to the west so it isn't reliant on anyone but itself. That's why Chinese investment throughout the African continent comes with Chinese workers and Chinese companies whom quickly dominate the local markets.
Who is going to sponsor Niger or Mali or Burkina Faso?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's always interesting how these kinds of people come out with claims about their special thing, which is going to magically bring peace to the planet, end poverty, and leave everyone holding hands singing under a rainbow.
It's a cute story but the reality is, that isn't our species. No amount of technology/wealth/abundance/knowledge/adherence to your spiritualism is EVER going to change that reality. Humans are social animals in competition. We work together as a group to benefit ourselves as individuals. Things like wealth, hierarchy, war,, are hard coded biological responses.
Not to mention, all this apparent abundance is supposed to come from a magic powder called mana that is extracted from...other animals. So we'd be destroying the natural world around us for that to happen at scale for the world.
There are plenty of stories like Tim's, where they make these claims about peace and abundance and wonder. But it's all Barnum statements. Of course, those lower down the hierarchy want to hear about some magic that's going to make them equal. Even more so these days with all the equality of outcome, woke nonsense. But it isn't real. It isn't practical. It's just fantasy.
Listen if the knights templer had such knowledge and information, why would they be fundamentally hierarchical power structures? If Tim really is one of them, why would he be a grand master instead of everyone being equal with equal input. If it's true why would they need to wait at all if it's going to pull apart the power structures anyway? It's nonsense for the masses.
Is the rest of his story true? It doesn't seem it but if he's willing to show evidence I'm willing to investigate that evidence. But the idea of some magic outcome where humans stop doing human behaviour is out and out bunk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harjitkaur5407 It's normal for animals to fight over mating rights, resources and territory. In social animals, you also include tribal clashes, which can be brief in nature or sustained. None of it is unique to humans.
What IS unique to humans is the use of tools for these purposes (weapons). The complexity and function, known as "technology" of such tools has risen to a level where one group of people can wipe another group of people out of an area (ethnic clensing) or out of existence (genocide).
This is not something other species are capable of, because they do not utilise tools in the same manner. This is why we have rules of war, and rules of what is definitely not allowed, which apply to everyone whether they sign up or not. These rules are intended to provide minimum standards for behaviour on how tools can be used during fights, under what circumstances and against who.
That these rules are being broken is the source of the outrage. You have one group (Palestinians) whom have been recognised as living in an area for at least a thousand years, or approximately 30 generations. These people, of similar ethnic heritage practice the Abrahamic trifecta. You have another group of people (zionists), not indigenous to the area, coming in and colonising then breaking all the rules, including the big rules like ethnic clensing, apartheid and genocide.
That is why people are upset and protesting. These things are not new, but they also can not be allowed to happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SlickVoyager @See you there Slick! Oh boy, we've got a slow witted ideologue here.
No one has "defended" Belarus. You have failed completely to understand what has been said. Respect of national sovereignty is essential to world order and peace.
There objectively was no hijacking. Article 1 of the Chicago Convention states that a countries airspace is sovereign. That means when you fly through a countries airspace you are bound by their laws and they have the right to ground you and detain you at will. That right is further explicitly stated in article 18 of the same convention.
The EU and yankville combined ground a plane flying through their airspace to remove one or more persons for various reasons a few times a year. Those two are not hijackings, they're countries exercising their rights under the Chicago Convention. Taking a plane over a country is legally no different than taking a train, bus or driving through it. If you're wanted by police in that country, you may be stopped and detained.
The plane in question was grounded as under Belarusian law it contained two wanted criminals suspected of inciting and organising an insurrection through a group chat. That we support their insurrection is inconsequential, that's simply our outside opinion.
No country should be economically coerced. Internal Belarusian politics are for the Belarusians to sort out themselves. Sovereignty is a foundational principle of us getting along, it's why non-intervention is such a prominent theme in the UN Charter.
Some people suspect the Belarusian election was rigged, but we have no actual evidence of that. The 6 Jan Q-Anon protesters in yankville think their election was rigged, they've all been arrested and charged despite doing far less than the protesters in Belarus. The current Chilean protesters think their election was rigged, as do the current protesters in Iran. Many in both countries are being arrested.
You also got the reason for China's tariffs and sanctions on Australia completely wrong. Australia was the FIRST and has remained the LOUDEST country to call for an independent inquiry into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but that WAS NOT why China imposed sanctions.
China has a list of 14 grievances some of which date back as far as 2014. They include domestic laws and policies that China does not like, accusations of discriminatory practices and what China sees as interference in Chinese domestic affairs.
This new human rights justification being pushed is complete bunk. There's human rights violations all over the planet including in the EU and yankville but conveniently it's only the country with a strategic advantage or a direct competition that seem to have human rights violations that matter.
As long as a country doesn't violate rights of other countries, leave them alone to figure themselves out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's propaganda as usual, but actually I think this video is incredibly racist.
The way in which the Niger is conflated with Mali and Burkina Faso is shameful. It's like saying the UK is the same politically, socially and economically as Germany because the people are white in both and they're geographically close by.
The way in which the people of Niger are talked down too as if they're idiots, as if this reporter somehow knows better than the citizens of the country... just disgusting.
It isn't possible to push the anti-russia narrative on this story without coming out racist. This coup d'etat wasn't about Russia. It was about France, plundering resources from Niger, and without even proper compensation. It's about colonialsation by proxy, with their puppet government. There was no real democracy in Niger, it was a rigged game.
This idea that the military won't secede power back to the people, when they've done it over and over is also absurd. There is no reason to expect they won't give power back to the people this time either.
Niger are now partnering with a different set of nations, not just Russia. They're hoping to improve life for their own people and no one else. The same as every country in existence.
This video is a disgusting, racist new low for CH4 and I would hope someone at CH4 has the good sense to take it down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1997AZ False.
The UDHR and convention on refugees hold now such limitations. No one seeking asylum is "barging in" they are seeking asylum. Not all countries are signatories to the UDHR &/or convention on refugees. There are no limitations under international law on how many countries you may transit before you find one you feel safe in. The safety requirement is subjective, it isn't where you or I think an asylum seeker might be safe, it's where they individually feel safe.
The EU as a bloc have an internal law that pretends all EU member states are the same with the same rights and values as each other, so states that inside the EU asylum will count as from the country the asylum seeker first entered the EU from. This is done mostly to protect inner countries like Germany, France and Belgium from having to process many, if any, asylum applications.
However once an asylum claim has been granted and they become refugees they are allowed to move freely throughout the EU and live in any EU member state.
EU law inside of the bloc is separate to international law, and works because the EU is a bloc with common laws.
These international laws have been around since 1947. That means unless you're 76 or older, they have been in existence your entire life. They have certainly been in existence for the entire lives of essentially everyone in politics today. So rallying again asylum laws is frankly, idiotic.
Germany should process and deal with all the Syrian asylum seekers, because Germany invited them to the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinjoseph8491 False on all counts my dear sir. Third country processing is not at all a new idea, not by a long way. It is often referred to in this context as the Australian model, as Australia perfected the process in the 1990s - early 2000s. Every country whom tries third country processing in the Australian model succeeds in destroying people smuggling and dramatically reducing irregular border crossings for economic migration reasons. Indeed, it is many of the ex-australian politicians whom are the architects of the Australian model whom are the key advisors to the government on the Rwanda policy. The EU is too considering third country processing because it is in fact the only proven thing that works.
The goal is to stop unskilled poor people trying to immigrate. It's bad for them, it's bad for us. The way to stop them is to crush their hope that they can do it, and the way to do that is to send them to another country with the same (or ideally worse) economic conditions than where they came from and make clear that's the best they can hope for.
In terms of student visas, they're used as a back door to economic migration. Student visas make up the bulk of both gross and net migration. The bulk of those visas are for low end, low demand, short courses, however the visa is then used as a stepping stone to stay in the UK. For that reason the student visa system needs to be tightened up. The only people immigrating should be those with needed skills or those who can elevate the economy. Genuine asylum seekers too, but they're only temporary under international law and shouldn't have a pathway to permanency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@royboy565 Roflmao. Mate, you are fibbing hard and making a clown of yourself. Again, you make statements which are not true and anyone can easily look them up to see so. The memorandum of understanding with Rwanda has no limit to transfers. The domestic policy has no limit to transfers. The home office have earmarked 24K people to go in the first wave AND LETTERS HAVE BEEN SENT. Once again, I urge you to stop reading the mail on sunday and start reading the actual legal texts.
The Rwanda policy is written by the exact same Australian politicians who wrong the Australian model. The same ones. It is in fact the same thing. The UK has existing turn back and take back policies in place. Australia did not use these things for the vast majority of cases.
Third country processing in Australia started with the navy purposefully sinking the boats they were crossing on, often with all the people still on the boat. Then plucking the people out of the water and transporting them directly to a third country processing centre. It was important they never touch the mainland for legal reasons. By never touching the mainland they never were able to claim asylum in Australia and as such any successful asylum claims were resettled in either the community in which they were processed or yet another country which Australia had agreements.
Whilst awaiting processing they would be held in detention centres. These are nothing like the hotels used in the UK, and are essentially purposefully overcrowded prisons. Their claims were purposefully delayed for a random time between 2 to 5 years so they were essentially getting a random prison sentence. This is the intention to replicate in the Rwanda policy and as it will take place in Rwanda will not have the ECHR to stop them. They won't just be roaming around Rwanda, and pulling their claim won't help them get out faster. They will be stuck there for an undisclosed random period of time, unable to contact family back home, unable to change their minds, crowded, underfed, with only basic and essential healthcare.
The stories they will go back to their countries with, will stop the flood of crossings. I am extremely familiar with the text and implementation of both of these policies. As I've already demonstrated I can quote from memory relevant subsections and their text. What an ex-civil servant says in a media interview is irrelevant. Politicians too will often say things to media that have nothing in common with the actual policy in order to make a policy sound more paletable. To understand a policy, you must actually read its text in full and any supplementary documents related to it.
You are quite clearly a disingenuous commenter. For whatever reason you don't want the boats to stop, and you're willing to lie to attempt to convince others that they won't. But they will. The EU knows they will and that the number then going to the EU will increase. There have been multiple meetings about this, and it's the trigger for the EU to likewise be looking to the same third country processing policy. These are all verifiable facts. It doesn't matter if you want to accept them or not, it's objectively how things are. There's nothing left to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh no @django3422 that's not at all what I was saying at all. On the contrary, I was pointing out the invalid nature of the fallacy ridden excuse for a previous reply, whilst double checking there's no condition that explains your intellectual inadequacy before I ridicule you for it.
Is it safe to assume you have no such condition? I genuinely have no desire to ridicule a retard if that's indeed what you are, but your previous argument was so poorly constructed that I feel embarrassed for your level of stupidity.
Imagine arguing against a security measure which improves the integrity of elections and suffers no downsides.
By your fallacy of thought we should wait to have concrete evidence of someone breaking into your home and squatting before installing a lock. According to your argument we should wait until there's a fatal car accident before fixing a pothole or installing a round about to slow vehicles down.
And even though we show photo ID in daily life for other tasks, and despite 98.5% of eligible UK citizens holding an accepted photo ID you want to make the baseless argument that it will somehow exclude some people from voting. Everyone eligible to vote is eligible for a free voter card and they don't cost a thing and expired IDs are accepted.
Based on that argument should we remove the photo ID requirement from entry to clubs and the purchasing of alcohol? Should we remove the right for police to ask for ID? What a joke you've made of yourself.
Where a loophole in electoral integrity exists it should be closed, just as we close other loopholes in the public good before they result in tragedy. That gives voters more confidence so losing parties can't claim rigged elections and by the time you discover a serious problem with electoral fraud it's too late and there's no way back. The integrity of elections is a cornerstone of democracy and peaceful society, strengthening it is never a bad thing. The electoral commission isn't against the idea in principle, indeed the opposite they fully support it and have advocated for it. Their only concern is over the timing of implementation because they fear their processes and logistics may not allow them to fulfil the requirements in time. Implementation of such a system for the first time is a massive undertaking, I imagine there will be some very late nights at the electoral commission.
Seriously, unless you have a meaningful, tangible reply, don't bother.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mombaassa The Korean War, which is still ongoing and not past tense, is a civil war between waring factions.
After WW2 the north was administered by the USSR and the south by the USA. That is, both territories were occupied by invading forces both of which kicked out the prior occupation of the entire peninsula by Japan.
By 1948 Kim Ill-Sung was in charge of the socialist north and Syngman Rhee was in charge of the southern capitalist state. As this division of the peninsula was artificially imposed by occupying nations neither Kim nor Syngman accepted the border and each claimed to be the sole legitimate government to the entire peninsula.
In 1950 the DPRK advanced it's military across the BORDER into South Korea with intention of taking the South and reuniting the peninsula.
As this action involved a BORDER CROSSING of a military force, the UNSC resolved to authorise the USA and it's allies to retaliate. That is, a peacekeeping force was not formed. It was direct combat by nation states.
China and Russia both opposed the move, obviously as the DPRK was still USSR territory and they were ultimately responsible for the invasion.
The USA, China and Russia all deployed troops to the region in 1950, at the height of the cold war. The Korean War was a proxy war between a China/Russian alliance and the USA and it's allies.
In 1953 an armistice was signed and the DMZ was formed at the 38th parallel. To this day the USA, Russia and China all have annual military displays along the DMZ.
That's a border dispute between neighbouring countries. The UNSC gets involved in those, that's it's job. However it only authorised a response it did not form it's own peacekeeping forces. It's also important to note that both Kim and Syngman as the globally recognised leaders of their nations formally requested assistance from the UN.
It does not however get involved in internal matters of a nation state. There are endless claims and intel that the DPRK routinely kills civilians. The UN does not get involved, the DPRK is sovereign territory. Similarly Myanmar is sovereign territory and the UN does not get involved in that, it has no legal grounds or basis to do so.
The requirements of R2P have not been met.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Long term retention is an irrelevant statistic if your rate of new uptake is equal to or greater than that of customers dropping off. That is the real difference between Hello Fresh and Blue Apron, and why one is profitable whilst the other is not.
People aren't dropping off due to price. If that were the case we'd expect to see the largest drop off within the first 3 months, with a rapid decline over 6. Instead we see a gradual decline over the first 9 months, then a rapid decline between month 9 and 12. The discounts are not lasting 9 months lol.
This tells us that there are other more influential factors at play, so we have to look elsewhere.
No competent seed investor nor shares investor is going to invest in a company that's going to offer heavy limited discounts on the first one or two orders then charge full price, solely in the basis that those discounts will attract people. They invest on the value proposition it presents the consumer and the provlem it solves. That means we need to look at who the target audience for these grocery kits are. Unlike with ready made meals (the 21st century TV dinner) where we're talking more about time poor or lazy people, grocery kits are aimed at people who don't know how to shop and cook. They aren't selling these to the Betty Crockers and Martha Stewarts of thr world.
Millennials and zoomers are the target market. These are giant toddlers roaming around without basic life skills. These grocery kits provide an effective way to simulate mommy doing the groceries for you and leaving a recipe card for you to make the meal. You get the buzz of feeling independent, without needing the life skills upfront. Over time, say 9 to 12 months, your confidence increases, you start to understand the basics of how to cook, with an assortment of basic recipes, you understand the ingredients you need and what "ripe" looks like. Now you don't need the grocery kit anymore, the training wheels can come off and you can do it on your own.
So long as parents keep failing their kids by not doing their job as a parent, these services will continue to profit. If parents started teaching their kids how to cook (and other life skills) from an early age again, like they used to then these services wouldn't need to exist. Do better parents. Stop wrapping your children in cotton wool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zachstolpa6521 Here's a dose of reality for you. If you remove conquest from the equation, humans have been pretty much settled for a little over a millenia.
So unless you're advocating for the wars of conquest (which would be a whole new level of stupid) then people haven't been migrating freely for generations, we're talking thousands of years here far longer than living memory.
That's not coincidence, there's very good reasons (plural) for it. I suggest you bother to discover what they are. Your way of thinking about the world is faulty, to the point of being dangerous. Not in a disrupt the norm, break things to make things better kind of way. No, dangerous as in harmful to millions history remembers you as a monster kind.
What you're proposing isn't a virtue mate, it's not something to be celebrated. Here's a dose of reality for you, there are no economic systems that have been invited thus far where wealth for the few is generated on anything but the poverty of the many. Not capitalism, not communism, not socialism or communalism (which also doesn't scale to our number).
We're on a rock, in space, that really can only support 1 billion of us globally and the technology that has allowed us to populate far beyond that ceiling is causing the climate to change.
So even if economics wasn't a factor (which would be ironic) a world where everyone could live in the luxuries of the developed world wouldn't last very long. Wars over resources like we've never seen before and climate change catastrophe in the next decade instead of 2100.
No matter what way you spin this mate, you're the ignorant fool. Use your head
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this is the first time I've heard a yankvillain politician speak whom wasn't a complete dumbass. I guess he grew up in a time before yankville dumbed education.
Of course for all his condemning of the political theatre, that's precisely what he was doing too. The constant partisan rhetoric and partisan blaming, made what could have been an impassioned rallying point for yankvillains of all creeds and political persuasions on the common enemy of inflation into nothing but divisive finger pointing and political campaigning.
The single biggest thing yankville could do to get back into the game and become competitive against China again is to completely dump partisan politics. Try talking calmly together, negotiating and compromising in good faith with each other for the benefit of the people whom it is your job to represent. Stop the finger pointing, stop the partisan blame game, stop the partisan media high fiving. Work together to make things better, that's the genuinely moral thing to do. After all, it's in your literal job description.
I also liked that for all the gusto about saying no to lobbyists, he snuck in there towards the end that his solution was to roll back environmental policies to allow hydrocarbons. 🤣 Gee, that surely had nothing to do with lobbyists and campaign funding, right?
Two things I think are important to understand about inflation right now is that some of it is genuinely down to the sanctions yankville and those yankville could bend to it's will (including my own country) imposed on Russia. Another part of the inflationary crisis globally, and a big part of why the market is predicting long term inflation, isn't in yankville control at all. It absolutely relates to productivity, but it's China's productivity. I know yankville hates to acknowledge that anyone else has influence over global fiscal outcomes, let alone over yankvilles domestic outcomes. But China is the hub for all production on the planet, there's barely a product in existence today that doesn't have China's touch on it at least once somewhere in the supply chain and more often than not multiple times. China's productivity is falling apart for various reasons and if you're in yankville waiting on components or raw materials from China, your productivity goes down as well. Even more so if your entire manufacturing base is located in China. If the Chinese economy tips over, the entire world is f'd, including yankville. A Chinese economic fall would make the 2008 "GFC" look like a walk in the park. To save itself, yankville has to help prop China up.
Anyway good overall speech, it was nice to see a yankvillain politician try to explain some of the words they use to lay people whom don't really understand otherwise. It would be nice if more people were economically and scientifically literate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MebiManga Well gee golly whiz, if it says it's a documentary I guess it must be. I mean it's not like anyone ever mislabels anything and everyone is definitely always honest. /s 🤦
You don't know what the word source means, stop using it. Your fanboy mentality however, is transparent.
Perhaps you're an empty headed child, but most of us aren't. Believe it or not, when an event is well covered with many genuine documentaries it's very likely people who enjoy watching documentaries have already seen one, two or more documentaries on the event. Amazingly there's no digging after the fact required, because FH exclusively covers events that have many documentaries about them.
With that said, your accusation of my efficacy is most amusing. If only you could comprehend words. I never claimed there's an upload every fortnight or so, I said I will watch one of these videos every fortnight or so. 🤦
You're trying so hard to fight back against objective reality, but what it appears you might have missed is that I'm far from the only one who has noticed the problems in all of these videos. Many have and commented about it. Why? Because the truth is FH makes things up in these videos, it just is. That doesn't make these videos bad. It doesn't mean anything negative about FH. It doesn't even mean FH is alone in doing it, many YouTube creators embellish their videos because they aren't bound by editorial standards. It just means they aren't videos you,,the viewer, should take as anything more than their entertainment value and they're certainly entertaining.
If you genuinely want to learn what happened this or any other event FH covers, watch an actual documentary on it. Most streaming services offer some documentaries or you might consider curiousity stream if you can't find one on a particular subject on the streaming services you already subscribe too. Alternatively, you might get lucky and someone has uploaded an actual produced documentary to YouTube from somewhere else (nat geo or discovery for example).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cup1966wow You have that the other way around. You have less buying power because the currency devalued. The why a currency devalues is complicated.
The OED is the authority on english as used in lay english, you're correct. Inflation however is a technical economics term with universal meaning regardless of language. The OED is NOT an authority on technical terminology.
No, currency devaluation is NOT a synonym for prices increasing. They are very different things than can happen together or in the case of consumer price rises, independently. Prices can increase, even dramatically, when inflation is still low.
Thank you for finally actually citing what turns out to be a report for a UNION advocacy group trying to justify the need for pay increase and strike action. 🤣🤣 You couldn't get any less credible if you tried.
This is a speculative piece that fails to understand basic economics concepts or to provide actual evidence for it's claims. Guess why? Because they aren't true.
The reality is inflation rose around the world in response to numerous factors including but not limited to, excessive borrowing by governments around the world in response to the pandemic, dramatically reduced productivity because of the pandemic, all the f***ery going on behind the scenes by the UK, yankville, EU and co with regards Russia and Ukraine, the displeasure of OPEC+ with how the aforementioned have been acting, lockdowns in China as a result of the pandemic, logistics distribution backlogs from China, bottlenecks in the semiconductor industry, etc. etc.
Stop listening to unions. Come back when you have half a clue.
1
-
@cup1966wow roflmao. You're missing the key statements in this explainers and failing to contextualise whom they're written for. You're so busy trying to prove yourself right that you've missed the forest for the trees.
When the ECB talks about €1 being worth less than the day before they're talking about devaluation. That devaluation happens are the currency side and crosses the whole of the supply chain.
You're looking up short explainers for lay people where they're attempting to not get too bogged down in the weeds. They're all telling you about devaluation and it's effects on consumers without getting into the details.
Instead of going to lay explainers trying to give a one line overview of a complicated economic feature, grab yourself an economics textbook and learn about how things interact to devalue a currency which then results separately in a rise to CPI.
These things are all related to each other and CPI is often used as an inaccurate indicator of inflation but they are NOT the same thing. It's a nuance, and I don't blame you for getting confused, but an important one to note. Particularly if you're trying to understand why for example strikes directly increase inflation, or why profiteering does not. Indeed using CPI as an indicator of inflation is where many reserve banks (including the bank of England) went wrong, and were caught with their pants down on this inflationary cycle. Andrew Bailey has directly admitted that's where they went wrong on this very program. I suggest you check out his interview.
Inflation starts and ends in banking. It's the direct result of how money is made through deposits. That's why there's so much talk about too much cash in the system.
If inflation were merely CPI, there would be no cause to target 2-3% constant inflation. The argument would just be made that prices should just be stagnant across the supply chain. You also wouldn't see sudden sharp price rises across all industries by consistent amounts. How coordinated do you imagine industry is. lol. It certainly wouldn't be effected by government debt or levels of foreign investment. If it were merely CPI countries like Lebanon wouldn't be in the economic meltdown they're in, and Liz Truss' fairytale economics would have worked instead of causing a run on the market.
2-3% inflation is targeted by reserve banks because it creates new money and drives investment. The nuance between devaluation and CPI is the difference between Liz Truss style policies and Rishi Sunack style polices.
Profiteering is a crime across the whole of the OECD. Your method of evaluating profiteering is overly simplistic, highly inaccurate and fails to take all variables into account. I'm glad you're not in charge of a consumer protection agency, you'd tank the economy overnight.
I enjoy that you went from claiming profiteering were the cause of inflation, eventually citing an internal report for unions to "it's a factor". 🤣 Profiteering is exceptionally difficult to demonstrate, I'm not going down that rabbit hole, you can look up the statute yourself.
You've directly contradicted yourself in your last comment. You're claiming profiteering is driving inflation, but then claiming profiteering is driven by the crisis caused by high prices which you also claim is inflation. 🤣 That's some circular logic you've got going on there mate.
The truth is you just don't understand what you're talking about. That's ok, but you shouldn't try to act otherwise. Listen to those of us whom do understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Science IS neutral.
Algorithms (math) ARE neutral.
They are just tools. Nothing more
People are not neutral. People are biased. People can distort the tools in many different ways. Tools can be, and often are used in ways that are not neutral. But the tools themselves, always are. It's always the people that are the problem.
Separating those things is essential so you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. A shovel can be used to feed 100 people, or it can be used as a weapon. The shovel is neutral, it's just a shovel. The person holding the shovel decides what they'll do with it. The same is true for science and math. They can drive innovation, create prosperity and increase knowledge of truth, or they can be used as a weapon. Science and math are neutral, it's the person wielding them that decides how they're going to use them. Often too, like with the lady boy stuff, science is invoked where no science is present. It's like telling you to look at my shovel when I'm holding nothing at all.
When you create doubt in the tools themselves, over the people, everyone suffers. If people equated shovels with weapons, instead of with farming, there would be a whole lot less food. And if people start associating science and math, with weapons of socialism, instead of tools of discovery, there will be a whole lot less innovation and a crumbling economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Come on now, Harry is doing these interviews to sell a book and for no other reason. He has to say explosive things to get attention for the book.
When he left for yankville, they signed all these ridiculous deals with Netflix, spotify, this book, other books, other productions, because Megan wants to pretend she's a someone in Hollywood and to fund their lifestyle.
They've been threatened to be sued over each and every one of these deals for non-delivery. That's why they're pumping all this junk out, and it's why they have to try to make a big splash.
The best thing anyone, including the media, could do for all parties is just completely and utterly ignore Harry and his nonsense. Let them fade to black and obscurity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meltygear5955 If being "good" is subjective, and relative, does it actually exist? If being good is only what I say it is, was Stalin good? He certainly thought so. Is Bibi good? He certainly believes so.
No man, no matter how wicked his deeds sets out to do "evil". Most frequently the wickedness of the world comes not from some notion to do so but from the ignorant and short sighted trying to be their version of good. The worst acts in our history are the result of those who stopped seeking the wisdom of what a good man might be, and just tried to be whatever they decided it meant.
The truth is, without some agreed guidelines on what a good man might be, one is doomed to failure. Aurelius knows this, when reading and quoting meditations it's important to understand you're reading his personal journal. It isn't some philosophical or even self help text where the author is trying to describe their concepts to an ignorant audience. They're notes for himself to remind himself how to be at his best.
Whatever a good man is, must necessarily change over time as the nature of collective experience informs us. If we did not take our collective experience of say, fascism, into account and incorporate it into what it means or more aptly doesn't mean, to be a good man, we would be negligent at the wheel and doomed to repeat those same mistakes. Incorporating these experiences necessarily involves varied perspectives, and thus debate. What Aurelius is saying in this quote is not "do whatever you want" nor "be good in your own way". What he's saying is, don't just talk about being good, don't just debate it intellectually, live it. Live those ideals which you preach but do so in the context of the existing collective understanding of what a good man is, and those changes you wish to debate might be necessary.
A base definition however is always necessary.
1
-
1
-
Of course the real estate agent wants to use hyperbole to explain this law, and miss out all of the important stuff.
The good cause law expires automatically in 2034. It only affects certain types of rentals. If you own 10 or fewer units, or you own a building with 10 or fewer units, or your building is "luxury accommodation" with existing value beyond yhe threshold ($5M), or your building was built in 2009 or later, or your building has condos or a co-op, or the landlord lives in the building, or it's already part of a low income or rent stablised scheme, then the good cause law does not apply.
That is a significant percentage of the properties in NYC that won't be affected and includes all the properties the banks, investors and businesses care about.
Of those buildings included in the law, rents are capped at CPI + 5% or 10% flat, whichever is lower. For example if CPI is at 4.5% the landlord could increase by 9.5%. If CPI were at 13% then rent increases would be capped at 10%. To be clear 10% is not an insignificant amount.
If you rent an apartment for $3600 a month, the landlord can still lift rents by up to $360 per year. That turns a $3600 unit into a $3960 per month unit.
It also is not a hard cap. If you have a genuine reason to lift rents beyond the cap, you can. You just need to be prepared to go to court and demonstrate that reason to a judge if your tenant decides to challenge it which most tenants won't anyway.
The good cause portion of the law is just that, good cause. The legislation is explicit in what good cause is, this isn't a question mark about the courts. The law lists the thjngs which create good cause to evict or not renew the rent. That list includes but is not limited to
Nuisance. Failure to pay rent. Damage to the property. Demolition. Refusal of access. Illegal use.
So if your neighbour leaves trash in the hall causing pests, that is both nuisance and damage, so the landlord has good cause. A tenant staying in a property during adjudication must continue to pay rent under the law.
Squatting laws do not make squatters liable for back rent. That's a false comparison.
I suspect those landlords wanting to avoid this law will knock their older building down and build a new one to be exempt. That will be the big way around it.
The purpose of this law is to limit rental increases due to high CPI inflation events. It's a reasonable law with decent balance. There isn't a ton to complain about in it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every media organisation I see, even Al Jazeera, keeps making some kind of weird distinction between civilians and Hamas. But the only difference between them is whether they're armed or not, Hamas isn't an organised military force. They're civilians with pitchforks fighting back against their occupiers and oppressors. Ironically, everything Israel is doing right now is just creating more Hamas members.
Think of it like this, imagine another country, with the backing of the international community suddenly came and occupied your city. Let's say someone improbable, like Canada or Australia. Would you be willing to fight back against the occupation?
What about if they blockaded your city so you could no longer get basic resources?
What about if they prevented medical supplies coming through and kept destroying any attempts to make hospitals or medical clinics?
What about if they started going door to door and kicked you out of your house. Said it, along with all of your possessions now belonged to someone else?
What about if the settlers kept randomly murdering your friends and family in the street for just going about their business?
What about if they refused to let you leave so you were effectively a slave?
What about if one person throwing a harmless stone at one of their soldiers, that didn't even hit them, resulted in them slaughtering your friends and family, and bombing your neighbourhood.
Would you stand up and fight back? Would you try to reclaim some self determination?
What about if everyone who stood up and fought back was labelled a terrorist by the international community?
We keep talking about a border along the gaza strip, but countries have borders and Israel refuses to acknowledge Palestine as a separate country. That's half the point. So we need to stop talking about a border, because there isn't really one. It's more a line of distinction between israel proper and their slaves. It's like we're living 5000 years ago, it's disgusting.
Israel could end this today. They could choose to recognise Palestine. They could allow Palestine to engage in nation building. They could stop murdering civilians,. The international community could help, by condemning what israel is currently doing.
But none of that is going to happen, because there are insane zealots in charge on all sides who have deluded themselves into believing a freaking storybook character is real and that the same storybook character picked them as the "best" people. It's idiotic and childish. All this suffering over a story book and a prop building to go along with the storybook.
There's no point trying to reason with these people, anyone willing to delude themselves to the real existence of a storybook character has demonstrated a profound inability to reason or act with logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mappybc6097 Imagine being so desperate to push a partisan thought that you abandon the topic of the thread and retort about some mumbled nonsense.
The only person whom has the right to call an election is the sovereign head of state, the crown monarch and it's been that way since magna carta. Are you really so deluded as to believe the UK is a democratic state? Because it's not. Between the house of lords and the monarchy, it never can be. Commons is a compromise to stop revolt, nothing more. It holds no real power, every piece of legislation has to be signed off by the unelected ruling class and the crown whom owns the whole thing. That's not ceremony, that's function by design.
It's the root cause of why people don't elect PMs, because the PM isn't the representative of the people. The PM is the representative of government, to be specific of cabinet and appointed at the discretion of the crown for whom all ministers belong.
Politics in the UK isn't about common folk, it's about what's good for the ruling class and always has been. None of that however is at all relevant to inflation.
Global inflation isn't being caused by the quite entertaining clown show that britpol is, and has been for some many decades now. It's likewise not caused by partisan politics, nor brexit. It won't be helped anymore by school breakfast than it will tax cuts. Indeed trying to lift wages as a means of combating inflation only generates significantly more inflation. Labours plan would destroy the economy as badly as Truss' did.
Neither major party has any kind of meaningful plan on inflation. They're both children fed to wolves, utterly clueless about what's happening or how to respond.
The ONLY ways to handle inflation are by decreasing spending and increasing productivity. Increasing productivity isn't the same as growing the economy.
Given many of the productivity components are caused by factors in yankville and China, what can be done domestically is limited. However it isn't hopeless, dropping the sanctions on Russia and working to re-establish normal relations would have a huge relief effect on inflation. Interest rates work but that's a huge hammer to wield. Grant schemes or government backed loans for businesses wishing to expand production also help. But mostly you have to reduce spending and encourage saving. Use less. That's literally the only way, and it's a pretty unpopular message so no politician wants to say it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dogelore Fundamentalist Sharia did not apply during the last 20 years. Parts of Sharia applied but most of it was excluded.
Remember that the Islamic Emirate was in control before the ISAF invasion, and they have ceased control by force again upon the ISAF withdraw. One can not accurately describe a paramilitary cult who have ceased control a government. Governments are legitimate entities who have the authority to govern. A paramilitary religious cult who took a country by force are not legitimate.
Before their control it was Russian supported governance.
During the ISAF supported governance men and women mixed in society freely. Women had rights, they could move around on their own, they could work in any profession, they attended mixed gender schools, they were an integral part of the democratic government holding positions as ministers, aides and advisors.
Music was allowed. Public laughing was allowed. Dancing outside of ritual was allowed. Attire was not controlled by law. There weren't morality police trying to flog you on the street if they didn't like something you wore or did. Poetry that wasn't scripture was allowed. There was a heavy influence of human rights and western idles. There was a free press.
None of those things are allowed under Sharia law, and none of them have been allowed since the Taliban ceased control.
The ISAF supported government wasn't perfect, they suffered a lack of real experience and corruption. But it was a start, experience, anti-corruption mechanisms and good governance take time for a society to build. Time spans best measured in generations. You have to be running a democratic society to build them though.
The economy of Afghanistan was building, it was becoming vibrant. It wasn't self sustaining yet but it held all the signs that it was on track to become self sustaining. Afghanistan had all the right signals to tell us it was finally becoming a free society.
If the Taliban want the aid money flowing to Afghanistan again they must remove Sharia law, give people back their rights and reinstate democracy. It's very simple and that's what this meeting is about
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yooyoo8248 Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you have no concept of history.
Interesting goal post move. Not sure what you think this has to do with a march designed to intimidate and inflame. Please understand that there were less than 5000 jews in Palestine before 1948, and that all the families that now call Israel home have immigrated from across Europe and yankville. They are immigrants.
Please understand that when you steal land from others , evict them, occupy them, blockade their territory, treat them as second class citizens, kill them, call them your enemy and describe them as terrorists out of racism, then hold a march where you walk through their territory and their holy sites celebrating all of the things you have done to them, that isn't free speech, that is intimidation.
So it seems to me, if Israeli jews really have no were else to go, they might want to calm down, lose the religious rhetoric and treat their neighbouring fellow humans better.
Zionism is a disgusting mind virus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh my, are you really this naive? This is how media, particularly tabloid media, operate. Truth doesn't sell papers or get people watching the evening news broadcast.
Fear, outrage and injustice do. So that's what they report. Always have, always will. Yes, that means smearing people most days of the week.
Ones only recourse is a defamation lawsuit. To win that the family would have to demonstrate Mr Newson had a medical emergency. That isn't possible.
This is just how media operate. That includes the maker of this video.
Edit: However, to be fair this video leaves out 80% of the story including key facts such as newson overshot moorgate station in similar fashion twice in the previous week, and was known to drink on the job. It also leaves out the guard, the poor maintenance schedule, the culture of the employer, etc all of which led to this event.
Ironically the way that you knee jerk into this comment, accusing the media of getting something wrong after watching just a single entertainment based video which lightly describes the incident is part of the problem. It's why tabloids report the way they do. You are part of the problem. Instead of knee jerking, consider finding out more information and reserving judgement until you can be sure you have all of the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deankruse2891 First and foremost I want to address the massive logically fallacy you've made which appears to be the crux of your argument.
According to you IF X=Y THAN A=/=B
But that is false, both statements can be true. Or more succinctly that Russia is or is not something has no actual bearing on the varsity of my earlier statements.
I'll reinforce my statements again later, but what I really want to drive home for you is what Russia is or isn't has no bearing on what Ukraine is or isn't. Your argument is total nowhere land.
I also want to briefly touch on your false description of Putin, and how he gained power. Russia has been politically corrupt since the Bolsheviks seized power from Tsar Nicholas. When Yeltsin was in power he robbed the country blind, and Putin as Yeltsin former KGB attack dog witnessed everything Yeltsin did. When he wanted to retire he couldn't just allow anyone to be elected as president, if they were Yeltsin would surely go to jail.
So, Yeltsin organised for Putin to succeed him. Putin is now in a similar position but unlike Yeltsin has no one he can trust to keep him out of jail. That's why Putin goes out of his way going so far as the recent constitutional change that'll see him president until at least 2036.
Like all of Russias leaders before him, Putin needs a trustworthy successor.
You likewise seem to be unaware that since before even the time of the Romans, the height of the trade in slavs as slaves (slav is the origin of the word slave) throughout Europe, Asia and Africa the region now known as Russia has seen itself always, perpetually as the protector of slavs everywhere. It's a tradition that Russia takes very seriously to this day.
Parroting what you've pieced together for 2 minute news segments isn't useful. You have to actually understand the deeply complex and historic contexts of what is going on in Russia and in Ukraine. You have demonstrated you don't possess this information. Stop your nonsense.
As for Ukraine;
It is an internationally undisputed fact that in 2014 Ukraine was overthrown by a violent coupe which murdered and exiled democratically elected members of government and was orchestrated by a criminal syndicate who deal in oil and gas.
It is an undisputed fact that the people of Crimea called to Russia for help.
It is an undisputed fact that the Donbas region has been at war with Kiev for 7 years, over access to the oil and gas fields in the Donbas.
It is an undisputed fact that the people fighting for the Donbas and Crimea are ordinary civilians who do not want to see the death of democracy in their country.
It is an undisputed fact that prior to 2014, Ukraine had been a democracy with free and fair elections for a number of years. And that the elected governments of Ukraine had always been pro Russia.
It is a fact that the 2019 Ukraine election was rigged.
It is a documented fact that Hunter Biden, sent to negotiate by his then vice president and head of the yankville task force on the Ukrainian coupe Joe Biden, made a multibillion dollar deal for shares in the oil and gas companies owned by the crime syndicate who perpetrated the Ukrainian coupe.
It is a fact that by Ukrainian presidental decree Ukrainian military forces were built up along the disputed zone and regions Ukraine's undisputed border with Russia in order to incite a response from Russia and allow Ukraine to run around Europe screaming about the safety of Europe in order to try and drag NATO into this
And just to drive things home full circle, it is a fact that the reality of Russian corruption doesn't invalidate the reality of the corruption and violence Ukraine is now faced with as a result of the 2014 coupe.
You have been played
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@imEden0 I agree with the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, whom from the start 8 years ago have only wanted to live peacefully and autonomously in their own homes, in their towns.
I disagree strongly with the continual characterisation of them as "Russian separatists" as they have continually looked for ways to either remain part of Ukraine or to become their own independent nation state. We are talking about civilians men, women and children of all ages whom have been murdered en masse by their own countries military at the order of a president whom claimed power not through democracy but through violent, murderous coupe.
I also disagree strongly with the continual characterisation that the war is somehow illegal. The UN have been abundantly clear that much to their displeasure there is nothing illegal about this war.
I wholly reject propaganda from any source. I care only about objective fact.
A president whose bosses want the resources under the towns of Donetsk and Luhansk. ~$2T of oil and gas, that's what it's about.
I support Russian actions so far as their defence and safe keeping of these innocent people. I do not support the wider land grab, even though I understand it's strategic importance to holding the Donbas. I respect the people of Donetsk and Luhansk in their decision to join the Russian Federation but I fear they made that choice out of necessity as the lesser of two evils. These people want independence, free of both Ukraine and Russia, I support that.
I likewise do not support the people of Kyiv nor western monetary, economic and military support thereof. Supporting them is directly harming us for no material gain. Without western intervention this would have been over 6 months ago. It would have taken all of 2 weeks to conclude, donetsk and luhansk would be free independent states with minimal civilian harm.
War does have casualties, and that includes civilian casualties. The only way to avoid that is to avoid war in the first place which had been on the table for the last 8 years but Ukraine and yankville refused to avoid it. If anything, Biden pushed hard for a war.
I would imagine if this war is still going on in 2 years time when Biden loses office, it will mysteriously come to a sudden peace agreement within the first 3 months of whoever beats Biden taking office.
1
-
@imEden0 The mistreatment and murder of civilians in the Donbas by Ukraine has been heavily covered by mainstream media in the 7 years leading to this war. There is mainstream media coverage of Ukrainian military shelling their own towns, shooting at civilians. There is wide coverage of the thousands of children murdered by the Ukrainian state in the name of resources for the organised crime gang whom control the country.
Make no mistake Ukraine has always been a puppet state and continues in that tradition. All that changed 8 years ago is who was controlling the puppet.
Prior to the violent coupe of 2014 (which almost failed but was propped up at the last minute by then vice president Joe Biden) Ukraine was a democracy. It's democratic leadership were sympathetic to Russia and China. Russia restoring democracy to Ukraine wouldn't have harmed anyone, Ukraine has been united with Russia for the entirety of it's exist except the last 8 years.
Ask yourself, why now. Ask yourself why Ukraine would move 75K troops onto the Russian border 5 weeks after Biden took office and the media only reported the Russian response. Ask yourself why this war broke out just 7 weeks after Biden took office with no long term escalation. Ask yourself why Biden couldn't just sign a piece of paper to state NATO wouldn't expand onto the Russian border knowing not doing so might lead to war.
Ask yourself why Taiwan, a Chinese state confirmed by 178 of the 193 UN member countries including every member of the G20 as being part of China, acknowledging the one China policy and having denied it's independence bid on no less than 23 occasions is constantly presented by media and politicians from these same countries as a sympathetic state worthy of independence. But poor rural farmers, innocent families with no agenda other than to live their lives as normal, with their democracy respected being fired upon, murdered by their own countries military have their humanity stripped from them and are described as some kind of enemy.
Ukraine isn't united, it hasn't been for a decade, maybe longer. Western Ukraine like the western lifestyle of Poland where many of them commute to daily for work. Eastern Ukraine miss the Soviet days and are loyal to Russia, their ethnic homeland.
The obvious solution is for Ukraine to split, however all of the industry, resources and agriculture are in the east so a split west Ukraine would have literally nothing. It would be dirt poor. So they enslave the east and hold them hostage.
Genuine democracy needs to be restored to Ukraine, but that can't happen whilst organised crime are in charge anymore than it can in Russia.
The people of donetsk and luhansk need our support in their independence. They shouldn't have to choose between joining Russia or oblivion. I mean can you imagine if the US military suddenly started shelling Columbus Ohio because a dodgy oil company who donated the biggest amount to the president found oil under the city and offered the president a personal cut? That's what's happening in the Donbas. It's disgusting
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're getting some things wrong here.
1. The MEDICAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence is, and always has been against this. The pharmaceutical companies making these hormone therapies are screaming to not use them in this way. They know there will be inevitable lawsuits and they don't want any part of it. What you have are ACTIVISTS and SUBVERSIVES who BULLY, THREATEN and INTIMIDATE medical associations. Please note that if you look to the AMA, AES, APA, etc where they "support" "gender affirming" they all link to the same third party document as their "policy".Who is the third party? Just a radical activist group pushing BLM, Trans, Communism, "prison reform", "justice reform", etc. All the usual stuff from subversives. A group known to use physical violence to get their way.
2. To dismiss all of this as just "parents grifting" fails to acknowledge the complexities and variables at play. 17:34 1.4M trans people across the whole of yankville. That's your figure not mine but it's also just 0.405% of the population, not even half a percent.
To put that into perspective, at 3.7M people (1%) there are more than DOUBLE as many people in yankville with schizophrenia. And to really drive it home, at an estimated 1.5% of total population, there are more than 3 times as many gay people in the USA. We're talking about an ultra minority cohort here. Think about how long it took for gay marriage. Can you think of another self interest minority group as small as the "trans" cohort that have ever had such a massive impact on society in such a little time, and had their cause go mainstream so quickly even where the majority of society is against it?
You think that's just parents grifting? 😂 You've got the elites and activists screaming at parents that if they don't affirm their child they'll somehow die, we've got mothers who wish their little boys were little girls and vice versa, we've got parents of gay kids using this as the new "gay conversion therapy", we've got sxul deviants exploiting this for their own fulfillment, we've got NAMBLA who in 2011 just after gay marriage became legal in NYC issued a press release saying they'd make these things happen next, we've got a whole group of nerds and social outcasts who have been weaponised, and we have an extremely well funded political machine with a drive to force this ideology and the others which frequently pair together on society and no transparency on who is funding it, or what their motivations are.
Who is Magnus Hirschfield? Do more than a surface glance. Understand him and what his purpose was.
3. I strongly disagree that we'll look back in 100 years and be horrified. Either this goes away within the next decade and we're appalled then, or it isn't going away. I'm leaning towards the latter because we now have two and a half generations indoctrinated into this ideological way of thinking. Millennials, zoomers and alphas are being indoctrinated right now. The pushback is coming almost exclusively from boomers, gen x and older millennials. What do you think society looks like in 25 years as boomers die out, gen x move into retirement homes and society is run exclusively by millennial, zoomers and alphas who have been indoctrinated into this ideology from childhood? How do you really think this goes?
What do you think all of this does to reproduction, let alone the family unit? What do you think this does to the ability for voters to hold power to account? What do you think it all does to the economy? According to UCLA figures, 62% of "trans" people are white, and and additional 20% are white, Hispanic identifying. That's 82% of "trans" people being white. Why do you think that might be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daniel-fv1ff The Spanish flu isn't endemic. We tend to defeat pandemic viruses not just accept them.
It's my professional opinion (17 years in medicine, work with western governments around the world on policy advocacy); that Omicron is far from the end. The WHO takes the same opinion as I do. Indeed the opinion of the WHO is much more dire than my own.
Variants aren't following a single progressive line, it's evolution in live action at a speed we can notice. Virus generations are occuring every few hours. Evolution goes in all different directions at the same time, so whilst it might ultimately be beneficial for a virus to not kill it's host the evolution of that virus is going to send off branches that indeed do kill the host or cause undesirable outcomes for the virus. It's the nature of adaption.
In omicron we have a virus that has mutations on the protein spike which allow it to better evade our antibodies making it more easily transmitted and harder for our immune systems to stop infection.
We've already had several descendants of omicron that build upon these mutations. The mutation required to make it more deadly is tiny.
However, the biggest risk from CoVID-19 was never the substantially high death rate. It's the chronic post infection secondary condition commonly known as "long CoVID" aka post CoVID-19 syndrome. People who acquired "long CoVID" during initial infection in early 2020 still have "long CoVID" and it makes them unable to participate in the workforce.
Omicron still results in "long CoVID" at the same rate as other variants, that is 1:3. That's 1:3 total and is not impacted by the mildness of infection symptoms. Importantly children can also acquire "long CoVID".
Now imagine an economy where 1/3rd of people of working age who previously worked no longer can. Or perhaps more importantly, an economy where 1/3rd of children today hit working age and are unable to ever participate in the workforce.
Think about what that really means for that economy and add on an aging population on top. That's the real threat of SARS-COV-2, not the estimated 60-100M global deaths annually we would have seen if we didn't lock down or the 5M we saw even with restrictions. It's the long term consequences of infection. SARS-COV-2 as an endemic pathogen is the worst possible outcome, because even if you mitigate hospitalisations and deaths you still have a chronic syndrome to deal with.
Your previous comment seems to have been removed by YouTube. I am therefore unable to make the corrections you have requested as I honestly don't remember what you said. I do remember you said something about mask efficacy though. Actual mask efficacy has not changed since the initial reports, 3 layer cloth masks remain only 33% effective. A KN95 mask is still far more effective than a cloth mask but still below 80% effective. The data did not change, the opinion of the advisory groups changed.
Early on the majority opinion taking all the data at the time into account was that with stocks of higher end masks such as KN95s so low, with the spread containable with isolation measures and movement restrictions, with high trust in public to socially distance, etc that a mask or piece of cloth with such low efficacy would be unhelpful and indeed could inspire overconfidence putting people into risky situations such as breaking social distancing that they otherwise might follow. Moreover that limited PPE stocks were required for frontline staff such as healthcare, law enforcement and border control and a flood in demand through advise would limit availability for key personnel.
As the actual behaviour of people became apparent, people didn't follow social distancing indeed some people made (and are still making) a point of doing the opposite. Super spreader emerged. People weren't listening. As governments/commercial entities had time to increase stockpiles of more effective masks, the opinion changed inline with the behaviour reality and respirator stock availability.
That wasn't a trust problem, it was necessary triage and reasonable assessment of risk at the emergence of a novel pathogen. What you also have to appreciate is that when a novel pathogen emerges we know as little about it as you do. It takes time, weeks, months, years to really get good substantive data and knowledge on a novel pathogen. Until that point health advise is generalised based on the data we have and how anything similar might act. As more becomes known, advise evolves to incorporate the new knowledge. That's a limitation of reality I'm sorry.
Anyway that's more than a long enough comment. I answered your questions as best I can. I have some work to do now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yet again, CH4 playing silly buggers with statistics. That labour interview was abysmal.
39% of immigration is students. 39% an increase on the percentage since the last election. 39% of 745K (only the net figure not even the full immigration figure) is 290,550. Indeed the revision to the net migration figure largely came from student vjsas. The actual number of student visas in 2022 was 468,000. That's more than TWICE net migration from before the last election on student visas alone. Every student visa has a pathway to stay, it's the new back door to immigration run by the universities whom have gone from earning a few tens of millions or in some cases hundreds of millions, to BILLIONS, a 10000% increase in university revenues.
That's what's behind those figures, massive student immigration that no one wants to talk about.
Labour know that, they know immigration numbers are going to keep growing, that they need to keep growing. That's why they refuse to suggest even a ballpark for immigration numbers. When asked where the social care workers would come from if not abroad, perhaps the most important question asked, labour dodged the question completely and started talking about wages instead. Because the reality is simple, local people don't want to take oldies to the toilet and wipe up after them. Certainly not the kinds of people you'd want to be looking after your grandparents or parents. Raising their wages won't help.
Any you do managed to recruit would be one less person of the right kind going into healthcare or other shortage industries.
I wonder where Tories and Labour imagine that extra pay is going to come from? National run social care isn't getting more money, and how do private entities respond to higher labour costs? They raise their prices.
All that achieves is pushing more people from private social care into the already failing national social care. That would cause a real crisis. All because some clueless politicians on both sides of the aisle wanted a number to decrease but were too gutless to go after it where it makes the most impact with the least disruption. Student visas. The university lobby, now flush with money and power, would go after them if they tried. So they go for low hanging fruit that is quite literally propping the economy up.
1
-
1
-
Here's the thing OP, what do you imagine they COULD do about it? Immigration rates have increased dramatically over the last 25 years all across the OECD.
You're failing to consider the full variables in play.
An aging population means reduced tax revenues. Governments across the OECD have been getting themselves elected on the basis of who's offering the biggest tax cuts for the last 23 years. Combined that means there's dramatically less money in government coffers to pay for services or build infrastructure. The money that is there has to stretch further and do more than it ever has before. For many OECD countries stretching isn't enough and they have long running budget deficits (ie. The nation is borrowing money every year to pay for normal bills). Inflation has made those loans more expensive.
How do you propose government could do something about this problem with dwindling financial resources?
Now factor in political terms,. By WEF figures the average politician in an OECD nation has just 18 months in a 3/4 year term in which they can actively pursue legislation. The rest of their term is taken up by campaigning to keep their job. The average piece of legislation takes 12-24 months to pass. What incentive do politicians whom are constantly in campaign mode have to set about large scale, expensive and potentially controversial overhauls of systems they may not still be in office to see completed? Large reforms get kicked down the road for this reason. The WEF recommends terms at extended to 6-8 years to tackle this problem. But voter support isn't there, and oppositions tend to hate it too because it means they're in opposition longer.
Land is increasingly at a premium. More and more people want to jam themselves into the same tiny area meaning existing hospitals in those areas have to treat more people, but also lack the surrounding land to make any kind of meaningful expansion. Similarly because of this phenomenon there's no land where these clusters occur to build new hospitals. And such developments would displace tens of thousands of people, who then protest about housing affordability. Everyone want infrastructure, just not in their backyard or at their expense. It's a catch 22.
Immigration isn't a save all. Immigration from other developed nations comes at the expense of the systems in those nations meaning they will try harder to drain from you. Immigration from developing nations brings under skilled workers whom are very often dangerous. Hospital conditions decline with these workers in place if they do not receive further training and cultural assimilation first. Further training is time consuming and costly, but perhaps more importantly displaces someone locally from receiving training so it solves nothing.
Immigration is the system that's been pursued across the OECD and it's at the root of the problem.
This isn't just a matter of aging population. It's a matter of population size, density hot spots. geopolitics, domestic political systems, international financial events, corporate interests and 5th wave economies.
There was nothing that could be done to solve the problems, least of all under the conditions in play. Instead what we need to realise is that all currently recognised broad economic systems no longer work at our population scales. We need a new economic system that instead of prioritising population growth for economic growth, thrives on stable or declining population size. It's the root of our problems. Such a system would enable government to fund healthcare adequately without destroying the country and the system in the process. It would likewise render things like aging population irrelevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@careyostrer6193 What on earth are you gabbing about with that strawman?
The criminal justice system in it's entirety is reformative in nature regardless of age of the convicted. A reformative criminal justice system is predilect on the idea that all persons are capable of change be they 0 or 99 years old.
I do not see some special opportunity for personal change over that of others simply because an individual is 16-18 years old. Indeed, if you think back to how you felt at such an age, your emotions, ego and fear of not being taken seriously/ fitting in with peers, along with overall lack of life experience, often prevented one in such an age range from identifying genuine opportunities and being willing to make such change. These are things which come, not just with age and life experience, but with the physical development of the brain.
At 16, one's brain is only JUST starting along it's decade long remodelling from high plasticity, high learning, to an adult mind which comprehends consequence, particularly external and long term consequence. This for example is the very reason juveniles are classified and handled differently under the law than adults.
A males testosterone peaks in this age range too, but is unstable. So you have an almost adult body, controlled by a child brain that is only just starting to comprehend consequence, with high drivers on peer group social status, endorphin reward, high tolerance to risk (that feeling of being invisible) and a randomly fluctuating hormonal cocktail that can create violence out of nowhere. That is why the union representative is talking about 16-18 year olds being the most dangerous group in the entire custodial system.
That isn't to say they are without hope or that they can not change. Again, the system is reformative, change is the entire point. What it is to say, is the reality. These are violent offenders, whom continue their violence whilst in custody and should be recognised and treated as such. They absolutely need corrections officers capable of deploying reasonable force where necessary to control the situation. The mere possibility of such force as an immediate consequence is often enough to prevent violence and to keep things calmer.
Youth facilities are expensive to run, much more so than adult facilities. Even more expensive still if they're run right. That goes for any youth facility, not just a detention centres. If you want the centre run well, you have to be willing to spend your tax dollars on it.
1
-
@careyostrer6193 If you're going to continue to converse with me please use paragraphs for readability or I will simply dismiss you.
There is no aggression, you are reading something into my words that is simply not there. This is your bias manifesting in the way you introduce tone to my words.
That the criminal justice system is reformative is not a view nor matter of opinion. It is an objective fact with regards it's legislative design, intent and practice of the system.
We are not talking about yankville, we are talking about the UK. They differ from one another substantively and fundamentally. Yankville is as irrelevant to this discussion, as they are generally to geopolitics. That is to say, completely. If you are incapable of remaining on topic, or speaking of the UK criminal justice system from experience or deep understanding then you are in the wrong conversation, and are wasting both of our time.
The neurodevelopmental and neurochemical changes from an adolescent brain to that of an adult starting from 16, and continuing until 25/26 are likewise not a view nor opinion. They are objective, indisputable medical fact.
I have not made any assumption. Did I claim you said either of those statements? No. I was merely attempting to bring your strawman back into relevance with the OP. You in fact repeatedly talk about the "cost to run cockham wood" as if it's excessive. My point was not only is it not excessive, it is underfunded for what it is. It needs a budget 5-6 times larger to be run appropriately.
The colour of ones skin is entirely irrelevant to the system and this discussion, Justicia is blind for a reason. What matters is their actions, and only their actions. But before you have a song and dance, white juvenile offenders make up 50.6% of detentions, and black juvenile offenders make up just 27.8% according to the latest official government youth justice statistics. Blacks are by far the lowest proportional ethnic cohort in the youth justice statistics. There are more asian youth in detention than blacks. So let's stop the silly race card nonsense because to be honest that's the racist and desperate meanderings of someone without a genuine argument. It's intellectually bankrupt and shameful.
We are not talking about juveniles whom have simply shop lifted or committed a non violent simple offence. We are talking about violent major offences such as armed robbery, aggravated home invasions, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault and manslaughter. These are serious violent offenders whom need to be treated as such.
All inmates, regardless of age, have a sob story. Every offender can point to something in their lives that didn't go well and try to blame their actions on that. The kiddie fiddler who wants to talk about their traumatic childhood, or the serial killer who wants to say their mothet/father/sibling/first love/whatever didn't hug them enough or spend time with them the right way. Every offender, right up and down the scale of offences can point to something. Even those who created the trauma for the youth offenders in question can point to trauma in their own past.
Whilst these past experiences almost certainly contributed to their crimes, our behaviour is determinist not fatalist. That is, whilst the past informs whom we are, we retain agency over ourselves, our behaviour and our actions. Unfortunately around 1/3 of children will experience serious trauma through childhood, however the vast majority will not go on to commit violent major offences. Accountability is essential, it's how you stop the cycle of trauma.
Violence is a choice, always. That isn't an opinion or a "view", that's behavioural science. Another one of those objective facts.
The introduction of social workers, psychologists, teachers and other similar staff to the system was discussed both by the union rep in this video and in both of my previous comments including the OP. That is as much discussion on the trauma these children have experienced as needs to be had. It is then up to these professionals to implement appropriate case by case interventions during detention.
What you have utterly failed to consider anywhere is their victims. You want to create strawman talking about the passed trauma of the offenders but refuse to talk about the real and present trauma of their victims. That's victims not "victims". They deserve to feel as though they matter. That their attacker is being held accountable and the same won't happen to someone else. The community at large deserve to feel safe both on the street and in their homes. None of that happens when we're preoccupied with the feelings of those causing harm to others.
One only needs to look to California, Queensland, Ontario to see the consequences of your way of thinking being taken seriously. California's economy is collapsing, Queensland is descending into vigilante justice and people in Ontario are afraid in their homes.
P.S. It is a amalgam of western culture that we say tax dollars and not tax pounds nor tax euros despite the currency not being in use domestically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Solipsism is such a silly idea and I don't believe anyone truly believes in it nor that anyone ever has.
If solipsism were true than we have some fundamental questions that must be resolved. For example
If the sole solipsistic mind is the only mind in existence, than why bother posing the philosophy externally at all? That includes what is the point in this video?
If this is all at best a dream, a reflection of a single solipstistic mind and at worst a lonely conversation with automatons devoid of consciousness, than why would anyone ever discuss their philosophy of solipsism? Surely if it were a reflection of a single mind, we'd all know the philosophy simply because one thinks it, and if the latter and it's a lonely conversation with drones what's the point? I mean one hardly discusses complex philosophy with a chat bot and expects anything meaningful to come of it. And that's ultimately what solipsism is proposing.
Consider even the use of the word "you" in any of them ramblings. If there is but one solipstistic mind in existence and all else does not exist, than the concept of "you" is not only unnecessary but false. It's a slip of the tongue someone whom genuinely believed they were the only being in existence would not make, and it tells us far more about the mind of the individual making such a slip than perhaps they might like.
The examples given at the end of this video of scenarios which might hold solipsism to be true are self defeating. A simulation needs to be created by another entity and thus you're not alone. Same to for automatons. Which leaves only the dream or other reflections of ones own mind. For this to be true, not only would physics not exist but every mind would merely be a reflection of the single solipstistic mind. Or in other words, everyone would be at once both enlightened and constrained to the knowledge of the solipstistic mind. There would be therefore no difference of opinion, no cultural or social variance, just shadows echoing back the experience of a single mind.
And from that one might suppose it's quite a depraved mind indeed, with all the pain, suffering and disease in the world one might call that a nightmare as opposed to a dream. Still too, such a mind dreaming might find that it exists in something.
To change subjects with some vulgarity, would it be possible to have some philosophy videos that don't reference the Matrix? I understand that many people like that film, but ultimately it's quite underwhelming and has little of substance in actuality to impart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Still no one is talking about the key election driver, the economy.
If immigration were high, but prices were low and people could still afford amazing lifestyles no one would care about immigration.
If crime was high, but prices were so low that replacing things stolen was trivial, no one would care.
The problem they actually care about and actually are identifying is the hit their hip pockets have undergone since covid. Harris was involved in making prices go up and had no well communicated plan to bring them back down.
Trump promised to bring prices back down. And he promised to get thjngs under control that push prices up. It's really that simple.
The driver was the economy.
10:35 "The main role of government is to protect its citizens"
What a disgusting thing to say. The role of government is not and never has been to maternalise the populus. The role of government is to administer public funds in such a way as to support and enable capitalism to take place such that the economy grows. That's it.
We don't have laws to protect individuals, we have laws to protect the economy and to create the kinds of conditions where productivity goes up. Schools exist to train employees. Hospitals exist to get people back to peak productivity as quickly as possible. The concept of retirement was invented to get the old, slower workers out of the workplaces in order to increase productivity with a younger, faster workforce.
That's how capitalism works. It's an economy that centres society around privately owned economic output. It's also why it succeeds over communism which centres society around government control of economic output. Capitalism and communism are mostly the same system, only in communism it takes the fate of the individual out of their own hands and places it into the hands of the anointed, which tanks productivity.
Prop 6 wasn't about slavery. It was about forced labour in prison. Very different. That's why it failed because people understood it and want prisoners to do forced labour. You know, justice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, she got a theatre degree and is looking for jobs in theatre & production.
The problem is simple, these kids (and millennials were the same in their day) thought all they had to do was turn up to uni, graduate with a degree and they'd be hired on the basis of the degree alone.
No one seems to have explained to any of them that whilst a degree is absolutely useful, and ticks a box, it is not a guarantee to employment nor a basis for employment on its own. You still have to compete with every other person in the same industry going for the same roles.
Exposure to the industry software she's talking about come with working in the industry. The other thing no one apparently told these kids (or millennials in their day) is that if you want a job, any job, after uni, you need to be working DURING uni. That's where you're supposed to work maccas, work an internship (even unpaid), volunteer, get a absolute bottom entry level job in the industry, anything where you have a manager who can be called, to validate you are a decent worker and have the qualities you claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@averyavenue I fear popular fiction has not aptly manifested the true scale of the nightmare we reside in. It is far too diabolical a thing for an author in the past to imagine for his future kin. Yet it remains far too complex; and at any rate we suffer under its spell to such an extent that it's true nature remains a mystery even as we live through it.
In fiction there is but a single big bad entity that caused the problem and which must be overcome to save the day. For Orwell that was government. For Wall-E that was consumerism. These are but the very tip of the iceberg that is sinking our civilisation. Importantly unlike in fiction where the causal force is conscious of and intending the outcomes created, in our reality there is not only many varied sources of this dystopia all at play on one another, but they remain under each other's spell. At once we are all victims and perpetrators of our own demise.
We, at war with ourselves; are our own big brother. There is no single, nor duo of fiction to point to that describes our reality. It is the fears of all that weigh upon us.
In truth even if we could glimpse it's true nature, it would remain too complicated a discussion to visualise in a 90 minute film or an 800 page novel. That is what makes this dystopia so sinister, it's nature remains so elusive and it's workings appear too convoluted to communicate.
Consider, in terminator the AI sent nukes to rule us. In our reality the AI only needs to send a constant stream of pretty pictures and videos, whilst elevating some above others ensuring a constant supply of content on this dopamine train. Of course there a several such platforms with the same workings and outcome to give the illusion of choice for those whom prove more difficult to acquire.
Consider the film Idiocracy and how much of it is apt to the world around you.
We live in a world where individuals can appear as anonymous armies, and bend others to their will through blackmail or harassment with impunity. Where doublespeak is part of daily discourse and no one blinks an eye. Where identity and immutable traits have been weaponised into ideological distraction. A world were mental illness, genetic deformity and both grotesque extremes of body dysmorphia run at epidemic proportions. Where we are ever denying our own nature, and the tactile reality that comes with it such as to fall into fanciful, escapist, sensory overloads. We have become a civilisation of half-witted, self-righteous and socially awkward addicts with poor impulse control and no memory.
Fiction could never have dreamt this horror for us. For if it were possible for the imaginations of men to conceive of such a thing in advance I have great doubt we would have arrived here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They could have just done nothing. Who checks Facebook for a review before hiring a company. Google reviews, sure. Product Reviews sure, yelp maybe but not so much anymore, BBB sure ... Facebook page posts by customers? No dude, get real.
All they had to do, was absolutely nothing at all. Heck, it's a Facebook page they could literally just delete the post if they really felt the need.
Guaranteed, this is an already failing business run by someone without any business sense. Like one of those businesses you see on those shows like Ramsey's Hotel Nightmares, or that Tabitha takes over,..those kinds of shows. Only it's playing out in court in real time. Looking forward to the supreme court getting involved, get out the popcorn 🍿
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NicholasThorntonOfficial No one said anything about mental illness. The quote was mental health, which is a different term that indeed does include neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. What the reporter said was a false statement.
As someone who has spent 18 years in medicine and a great deal of time on hoslital wards of all kinds, my analogy was apt. The job of general ward nursing staff is not to wait on patients hand and foot, it's not to care for them in a manner fitting to someone in your position. Their job is not to provide 1:1 care. There job is also not to deal with anger outbursts, abuse or beratement. It is not their job to restrain nor entertain.
They are busy doing pharmacy rounds, performing rotational obs, completing physician assigned tasks, completing paperwork, cleaning and assorted other functions. They have to do this for between 10 to 20 patients at a time depending on the specific hospital. That gives them no time for one on one care of someone with a neurodevelopmental disorder, which they are not trained in anyway.
I'm not sure what you imagine your families financial position has to do with this. There are children, sleeping rough right now, no roof over their heads, no food in their stomach, because their parents lack the financial resources to provide such things in this economy. There are children living in mould ridden council flats right now, for whose family every day is a struggle to survive, to put food on the table. Yet in both of these examples their families take care of them as is best their means.
You would be eligible for a disability stipend, so in reality your family caring for you as they should would improve their financial position not degrade it. Regardless, you are their responsibility, their burden to bear, not societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@develentsai3215 No mate, you're talking nonsense. You're making this up as you go along because you simply have no understanding of how the world actually works.
There's 15 members in the security council and they rotate on a term basis. The security council is, again, a place for talk. Mostly they deal with trade issues as they relate to security between nations, but they also deal with some other problems where nations are having trouble with their neighbours.
Some of the members in the UNSC wanted to condemn the arrest of NLD leaders. China and Russia vetoed the condemnation. Condemnation holds no legal authority and essentially doesn't actually mean anything. It's just saying "we don't like what you're doing, we hope you'll stop, but you can keep doing it if you want"
What are called UN peacekeeping missions do not involve a UN military force, nor do they just turn up uninvited. What happens is a country comes to the UN and asks for help. Then other members can volunteer to send in their military in aide of the request.
Then all the members get to vote on whether they want to allow that arrangement. If they do, they pass a resolution. The country or countries supplying their militaries to aide the country are doing so with the legal authority of the UN as opposed to acting on their own will or invading. That's why they're referred to as UN forces, they're acting with the authority of a UN resolution.
The UN itself does not have a military of its own. Nor do they have the power to just decide to send in a members military without an invitation. A UN recognised authority must make the request.
That's why the NLD ambassador tried making such a request to the UN. Unfortunately for him no one at the UN recognises him as speaking on behalf of the Myanmar authority anymore. There was some brief debate on whether it would be recognised but it was ultimately decided not.
That's not because of corruption, or China or any of this nonsense you're trying to throw around. It's because simply put the same Tatmadaw with the same leadership who arrested all of the members of the NLD, have been in charge of the country for 61 years and recognised as such. They aren't a random coup leader no one had dealt with before, they're historically the leadership of Myanmar.
Right now the NLD is trying to convince the UN that they should be recognised, that's the point of an envoy. But they're falling on deaf ears because they really aren't legitimate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Krytern CH4 is a Labour party campaign management mouth piece. I talked about Starmer for that reason. That you immediately assumed;
1. That one must support a political party
2. That there are only two political parties one could then support
3. That pointing to Starmer in a critical way must mean I'm some kind of fanboy for the other major party
4. That criticism of the labour r party leader, necessarily applies, let alone equally, to both major party leaders...
...is not only a non-sequitur, but perfectly serves to expose your own tribalist bias. To a hammer, everything is but a nail.
The reality is, there are more parties than the two major ones, and no one has to lend their support to any of them. Ever, let alone consistently. Last I looked one votes for an individual candidate, not a party.
There is very little, if any, difference between the major parties. This is a necessity for their survival because they are both seeking the support of the same majority moderate-centrist voters. There are however from time to time compelling differences between individuals inside of said parties.
More frequently than not one has to vote strategically. As it has been quite a very many decades since there has been a genuinely worthwhile candidate, one must instead frequently vote to keep the worst of them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every management and HR team in every organisation in the capitalist world , be it private, public or otherwise has to handle staff complains about other members of staff. More frequently than not these are empty complaints. IR law, and many employment contracts (particularly where a union is involved such as in nursing) grant employees strong protections against persecution, harrassment or workplace bullying. These protections mean that a manager can not approach an employee about a thing without sufficient, strong evidence they've done something wrong, let alone sanction the employee. Employees have legal recourse for employers whom act in this way friviously.
NHS management do not have special labour rules, they can't ignore an employee's rights. They abide by the same IR laws as everyone else and have union negotiated contracts to consider. They need evidence before they can act, so too do police.
What do you suppose would happen if we removed those protections from employees and required management to persecute employees on every claim?
There were several thousand staff complaints about other members of staff at the same hospital over the same period. The majority of which were nothing. The usual, personality conflicts, attempts at workplace bullying, third party conjecture, etc. What do you suppose would have made this case, these complaints, stand out against that backdrop?
It's all well and good to fain shock and call for change over this case in isolation, with the benefit of hindsight but that isn't how things play out in reality. Identifying a staff member as a freaking serial killer, in real time, without the benefit of hindsight, with no actual evidence and halfcock complaints from other staff is hard, if not impossible.
There are always people who come out of the woodwork in cases like this talking about how they've been in whatever role for however long and blah blah blah everyone should be outraged.
But you know what, I've been in medicine for 18 years and I'm going to say that's a load of bollocks. Staff in hospitals bully each other. Sometimes that bullying can involve a group picking on a single member of staff. Sometimes that bullying can involve frivious or unfounded complaints against the bullying victim. Sometimes complaints can jump to unfounded conclusions about another staff member.
Focusing on the management team because your outrage over this case isn't satisfied yet is misplaced. Instead, the inquiry should focus on what it is that drives a disproportionate number of English nurses to murder their patients compared to comparable nations. What is happening inside the nursing training and recruitment processes in addition to/or everyday role that motivates this to happen? Witch hunts don't solve anything, let's instead treat the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's weird that you separate out woke and DEI as if they're different things. It's also unhelpful that you use these code words, like woke, like far left, but never seem to acknowledge what they mean. They mean socialism. These are socialists.
19:37 You are talking as if it's obvious that Debian want to succeed. That socialist tech journalists want Debian to succeed. That their goal is to grow their distribution. But that's not how socialists think. Yes, they're watching as SUSE and Debian burn to the ground. But they're cheering as it does. Just like they cheered when Malibu burned years ago and they're cheering now as Palisades burns. It's deliberate. There are many in the far left writing and talking about it.
Burning down the large institutions is a core tenant of socialism. It's their first step to their so called utopia, which is our dystopia. It's their dystopia too they just haven't clocked on yet.
But listen, if you genuinely thought socialism could create a lollipop world where everyone was happy all the time, no one suffered, everyone got along, everyone lived in luxury, no one had to work if they didn't want to, etc, etc. If you had no grounding in practical reality or maths, so you genuinely believed that was possible and was something your ideology could create, and people opposed it, you wouldn't like those people much either. You'd probably think those people were the worst people too.
So you can't try to appeal to their practicality or common sense in order to stop kicking people out of their projects who disagree with them. Not only do they genuinely believe the people they kick out are awful people for standing in the way of their utopia, but Debian also is part of the system they view as the problem so it has to be turned to ash so that utopia can be built upon it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mephy0712 That's the entire point of the show, to not be respectful. That's why there's conflict. Look we all know our politicians are lying to us and shows like conflict zone are about yelling at those politicians and "owning" them. The premise is to trap them in their own web of lies, to expose them, to force them to be truthful especially when the truth would mean no one would vote for them.
Most of the time they'll just blah away and get interrupted, but the audience will feel good that they're being talked to like that. People enjoy seeing politicians humiliated, it makes them feel like the politicians are being held accountable.
That's the format. If you like the format, great. If you don't like the format, why keep watching and complaining about it? Lots of people love the format, it's why shows like this exist on every news network on the planet.
No one is trying to convince you of anything, you pretended to not understand and it was explained to you. If after hearing the explanation you don't like it, that's cool every show isn't for everyone. If you don't like a show, be normal and go find a different show you like instead
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What on earth are you talking about? China was devasted by communism, and was poverty striken right into the 90s. Things got better for China because Mao died, and Deng Xiaoping decided to move China towards capitalism which the UK and Yankville embraced. They started outsourcing manufacturing to China and that's what changed their situation.
It wasn't some wait and see nonsense. Jordan and Egypt have abandoned Palestine. Completely. There have been protests in both countries for months because their governments support Israel and won't help Palestine. Turkyrë has finally pushed sanctions, but it appears to be all they're going to do. As a member of NATO Turkyrë are limited in what they can do.
Lebanon is incapable of managing its own state let alone involve itself in any kind of coordinated conflict. Saudi and UAE are both strong UK allies, deriving their wealth and prosperity from UK support and OECD money. So, they're on Israel's side.
Nothing is going to change. Israel is a UK colonial outpost. The King decides what happens, and taking the land is to his benefit. He's not an elected official, he does not care what you think of him. He does not have to placate to anyone. That is real, genuine power because there is nothing you, nor I, can do to change things.
The two state solution is a lost cause of perpetual carnage. The only real solutions we should be pleading for is a single, unified state with equal rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol. So many people just making up numbers.
Transport emissions vary between country. In Germany, transport emissions make up 17% of all emissions according to the European Environment Agency (EEA). Private vehicles make up 48% of that 17%, or 8.16% of emission in Germany. The 48% figure used in this video is specific to Germany.
The bulk of emissions the world over come from heavy industry, energy generation (including renewables), waste management (including recycling and excess vegetation) and agriculture.
You can not make heavy industry or waste management emissions free with current technology. Nor can you make agriculture emissions free whilst maintaining yield. That's why we talk about "net zero" and not actual zero. "Net zero" is creative accounting, it means you can have as many emissions from the big emissions industries as you like so long as on paper you can "offset" those emissions to zero. For example, you might buy "credits" from an untouched part of the amazon rainforest and "offset" your emissions in Germany to that section of rainforest even though the two have nothing to do with each other in reality. Worse still, the same block of rainforest can be resold to many different stake holders and used to "offset" their emissions too.
The whole thing is a political green wash. Because of the lithium, other heavy metals and toxic chemicals used battery electric vehicles are worse for the environment than combustion vehicles are. The EV industry is moving towards H-FCEV from green hydrogen. This is one reason VW has delayed entry into the EV market. Instead of worrying about charging stations which also contribute to emissions and environmental destruction, H-FCEV use existing petrol stations and infrastructure, which also means infrastructure roll out is faster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you have to have armed guards at your schools to keep the children inside safe, you have utterly failed as a society.
No, the mass shootings didn't start with the columbine shooting. There were 6 other mass shootings in the USA the same year as Columbine, 3 of which happened before columbine.
No 2019 didn't see fewer gun deaths than previous years. 2019 had the highest number of mass shooting incidents on record, and killed the most amount of people.
Dan is factually incorrect on those two points and they're the two points from which everything else he says flows.
The reality is mass shootings in the USA started taking off in the 1960s. Before 1960 there was 2 or fewer mass shootings in the USA per year (outside of civil war). Most years prior to 1960 had no mass shootings.
Then in 1960 suddenly you start to see the rise of both the serial killer and of the mass shooter. The 1960s also saw massive social upheaval and cultural change, it isn't a coincidence that as community engagement went down, murders went up.
The problem in the USA isn't guns. The problem is the level of indifference towards the lives of others that exists. With anonymity comes dehumanism and risk, that is if society strips you of identity so you become just another number is a sea of other numbers it starts to not matter to people if you live or die.
It's a tactic used in every dictatorship to have ever existed. By robbing you of your identity you become objectified and people don't care about your death. But more importantly, they also don't care as much about taking your life themselves.
There is no real accountability because you don't know that person. You don't know their family. You didn't grow up together. Your parents aren't friends or acquaintances. So there's no direct accountability, no real sense of bringing shame or dishonor in taking a life.
This is where the USA finds itself today. If you then add on top of that people who are experiencing psychosis from drugs, people who are mentally ill, people who are disenfranchised from society (especially youth who lack the ability to fully comprehend consequence), people in desperate economic circumstances, sexually frustrated youth, and you then not only normalise but glorify violence to them through news media, political discourse, film/television, games, advertising and give them easy access to guns...
Christ under those circumstances you'd be more surprised to not find mass shootings.
The reason there is no "this is the solution" being put forward by anyone is in part because no one talking in the debate really understands the problem. But it's also because there is no one solution because it's not just one problem. It's a concert of problems that are all interacting in complex ways to deliver a specific end result. But each of those problems has a different solution attached.
Why not start though with legislation designed to encourage media and politicians to promote a sense of unity and community. Start by mitigation of the dehumanisation of society. Instead of putting armed guards in schools, enforce uniforms and give every* child a badge that says their name and something about them. It's much harder to kill someone if you're forced in the moment to think of them as having parents, a family who love them. A person with their own agency who likes and dislikes things, who has a life just like you. It might sound dorky, but it is a meaningful mitigation technique that is used in the frontline service industry around the world to reduce abuse and has been demonstrated to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sergionuno Apparently you just want to make believe.
You are correct in that things are relative however you are applying it incorrectly and don't appear to understand what it means.
You make the common mistake when looking between economies that pricing you experience locally apply then imagine wealth where none exists by apply median wages or prices of goods onto your own economy. It doesn't work like that.
There's plenty of undeveloped economies where $68K would buy you a mansion with sprawling grounds and leave you enough left over to live like a king for 20 years. People in those countries imagine you are rich because you have a house with clean water and access to the internet. Are you wealthy and privileged?
Wealth is relative to the economy it occurs in. Where median wages are high, so is cost of living. For example, in the Phillipines a McDonald's Sausage and Egg McMuffin MEAL costs 144 Philippines Pesos, or $2.81USD, I just checked. That exact same meal in my country costs $12.17USD or 624.74 Phillipines Pesos when converted. I used USD as a neutral third party reserve currency to make the comparison clear, I am not from yankville.
To use another standard metric, the average cost of a loaf of bread in Philippines is 15.27PHP or $0.30USD. 30c US for a loaf of bread. In my country the cost of that same loaf of bread is $3.18USD or 163.14PHP. I can buy a full meal from McDonald's in the Philippines and still have change left over for the price of a single loaf of bread in my country.
That's the power of inflation. You can have 3 middle class workers, and if one is in a undeveloped economy, one is in a developing economy and one is in a developed economy they will have vastly different costs of living and wages despite being in the same socioeconomic station.
In a developed economy $68K is not a lot of money anymore. It indeed will only buy you 1 midrange vehicle.
Or perhaps you're just a troll and you don't care what I say, you'll just talk some nonsense because you're not here to engage in genuine discourse you just want to spack out. Is that what's going on? I guess what you comment next, if anything, will tell us. If you still want to claim some nonsense about privilege then it's safe to say you're a troll and can be disregarded.
* All figures are valid on 16 Jan 22 but will change over time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MrRangard lol "Now that yankville has been shown to target protester"
Shown? Where, you haven't once demonstrated anything you've said. You've made vague references to penal codes without referencing which state it applies to, the context of use, what the code actually states nor acknowledging that a state is not a country.
Then you suddenly shift over to the UK before having actually even demonstrated a thing regarding yankville; talking about the entire policing bill amendment, clearly without actually having read and understood the thing. One assumes you're actually talking about the 3 clauses which target XR who are not peaceful protesters but the UK has so many protections for protesters that it lacked the ability to do anything about them.
Then you start referencing links that don't exist because, and you may not know this, YouTube doesn't allow the sharing of links in comments. You babble and rant a bit about your random ideological viewpoint making ridiculous comparisons to BLM, then finally, finally actually bother to quote a portion of legislation. But oops, it's legislation covering unlawful assembly such as riots and violation of health orders, not peaceful protests which are absolutely protected in the yankville constitution.
You're going to school me are you? Come on then, I'm ready for you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For me, knowing what we do of Friedrich, seems with all logic to be an allegory for depression. The wanderer is perched not upon a face where he can go forward, but instead upon a ridge. He has made his journey through the fog of depression to finally stand triumphantly in clarity. The ssa of fog is beneath him, his view of t and our view of him entirely unobstructed. Finally he can gaze upon the fog and see it for what it really is. And yet, and yet, his refuge of clarity is frightfully small and what lies beneath the fog neither he nor us can tell. Surely any way forward necessarily must involve descending once more into that fog.
He has struggled visionless through the fog to climb boldly unto this peak, and now stands with pride yet agitation, overseeing the vast overwhelming sea of maddening fog.
This to me therefore represents the brief, yet triumphant breaths from depression suffers may experience, and that feeling of desperation they might feel when they pop their head up and see the journey before them. I think anyone who has ever experienced moderate to severe depression for any length of time can relate entirely with this piece.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yankville has been a nation of sheep since WW2. Nothing has changed in that regard. No one in these comments was alive to see a yankville that wasn't a nation of sheep.
The sheep nature is only demonstrated with blind faith in divisional party politics.
If you self identify by a political party and you aren't an active employee/representative thereof, you're a sheep.
If every election isn't open for you, if it isn't an opportunity where you could vote for any party and base your decision on their platform. If you only consider the two major parties and only blindly vote for the same one every time. You're the problem. You're the sheep.
And if you don't vote at all, well, you're not even in the game so your opinions are irrelevant. You're a sideline sheep.
The only way to make representative politics work for the people, is to make them wholly insecure at each and every election. To vote based on policy platform, rewarding those with good policy and punishing those without. To not confine your votes to the major parties, to vote independent or third party when their policies are superior.
Those aren't wasted votes because voting isn't a sport where you win or lose. Voting is a comment, your chance to have your voice on the record, nothing less, nothing more. If everyone votes the way I described then whom the major parties are will change over time as it should. But more importantly even without winning, more votes going to third parties and independents sends a strong message to incumbents that the people aren't happy and their job isn't secure, so they have to work more for the people and less for corruption.
There's no point in making comments about sheep, if you're a sheep yourselves. What are you going to do about it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gmw3083 It is not possible for YouTube to outlast civilisation. YouTube, like all websites, is merely a publicly accessible database and a UI to display the information from the database in a "friendly" way.
That is they require humans to maintain them, to provide electricity and interconnectivity. To manufacture, purchase and swap out drives.
By definition the end of civilization would spell the end of the internet at large, including YouTube. However, it's far more likely Google will simply get bored of YouTube long before that happens.
Listen, YouTube has NEVER turned a profit. Ever. Since 2005 it's been a financial black hole for Google. Now whilst it's true that they've managed to get losses down to "just" $15M per year, it remains a significant sum of money. That means unless YouTube suddenly finds a model that retains the user base and good will whilst also making a profit it's reasonable to assume that it's only a matter of time before Google finally pulls the plug on YouTube.
As Google moves increasingly away from advertising based revenue, and towards direct user funded products as they have been over the last few years, it seems likely that pulling the plug on YouTube or switching it to a subscriber only platform will happen sooner rather than later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arkadiuszjandylewski152 Nice job fitting so many logical fallacies into such a small comment. Very impressive.
Let's see, what do we have here. A goal post shift, A red herring, A non-sequitur, A propositional fallacy, Ignoratio Elenchi, A loaded question and a personal incredulity in the same statement (extremely impressive), A tu quoque and probably some others I'm not thinking of.
This is a discussion of population size as it relates to climate change, not a discussion of supply chains.
You also seem to have ignored that 100% of population growth in Europe comes from immigration, of which irregular (illegal) border crossings make up the bulk. According to the European Commission, 51% of all irregular (illegal) border crossings into the EU come from central and west Africa, with North Africa accounting for a further 14%. That's 65% of irregular (illegal) border crossings coming from the African continent.
What I'm saying is, you can't discuss population in Europe without also discussing population in Africa. They're intertwined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cyberfunk3793 That's good, because I didn't make a further argument.I simply pointed that you are objectively wrong in your statements. Stating simple facts without further conclusion is not an argument.
I have no need to make any further argument, I have already stated the facts. Your mental backflips however could be construed as a "nah-uh" argument however. At any rate there is no substance or truth to your words, just mindless contrarian nosh.
I further see you are dedicated to one such false statement, which deploys more logical fallacies than I care to note, for you have continued to repeat it. I suspect the reason therefore is out of intellectual laziness, to dismiss truth in place of propaganda laden anchoring bias.
Allow me to clear that up. Your casual racism aside; which ironically represents both sides in the war in question, I'm not even on the European continent let alone Russian. Nor do I have any direct financial, genealogical or any other connection to Russia. As uncomfortable as it might make you, it is simply the case that what I have stated are the facts.
Sanctions are not a foregone conclusion to war. Wars happen every day without sanctions. Ending the sanctions on Russia would result in a rapid reduction of inflation throughout countries sanctioning them. The wonderful thing about facts are they don't rely on random people believing them, so I have nothing to convince you of.
Nonetheless, it's best you head back to whatever swamp you dragged your knuckles out of. This conversation is a tad too far on the complex side for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
😂 The formation of israel is not about the holocaust, of which jews were only 33%. It made a good cover, but the formation, location and design of israel came from zionist ideology which took hold during the war before we even knew the holocaust was occurring.
Stop me if you don't heard tbis one before. Zionism is based on racial supremacy and religious zealotry. It is the idea that jews deemed jewish enough by the zionist elite are genetically and spiritually superior to all other people on earth, and can do no wrong. It is the idea that a zionists should be in charge of everything, the entire world. It's the idea that a deity can have favourites based on race and grant ownership of land. That the zionist has an inalienable right to that land regardless of who they displace in the process and to form the nation of israel which shall be the centre of all mankind. In religious contextt from the jewish zionist perspective it means heaven will come to earth when the israelites drive the Palestinians into the sea. From the christian zionist perspective, it means the return of their prophet and the rapture when the israelites do the same. If the latter sounds insane to you, that's because it is. Islam in turn has a similar prophecy, only it revolves around getting rid of the israelis and creating paradise on earth, and this is where the hamas leadership are mentally.
Quite literally a holy war. 3500 year old mentality with modern weapons. Including unfortunately, nuclear weapons on the side of israel. Just what the world needs megalomaniacs to have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video can be summarised thusly.
• Guy realises he's just purchasing an access licence with digital content.
• Doesn't realise this applies to all digital content regardless of platform.
• Gets upset he doesn't "own" the content
• Doesn't understand he doesn't own physical copies either.
All IP is copyrighted. All IP you purchase, unless you're purchasing exclusive ownership of the copyright is in fact licenced. Whether it's physical or digital.
Digital content is just easier to rescind. Amazon, nor any of these platforms own the copyright to the content. They have themselves LICENCED it. They have a broadcast and resale licence. You are purchasing access to the content by the terms of their licence. If they lose their licence to the content, you lose yours too. This is the same for movies, .music, books, audio files, photos, games, applications, everything.
SAAS software where you have a subscription is the same thing. You purchase an access licence based on a time period. If you don't renew the licence or break the terms of the licence, you lose access. That's how all media works.
Rockstar took back physical copies of GTA 5 in 2015 at police gun point. You have never owned the media you consume. It has always just been a licence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shaddarhim You seem to be confused. If I am sell apples to you for 1c each, those apples are cheap apples. If you want to use those apples to make apple pies, it's cheap for you to do because I sold the raw product to you for so little. As a result, you can sell apple pies for less money. Who I am as a person has nothing to do with it. If I'm rude to people, that 1c apple is still a cheap apple.
If my competitor who wants to sell you apples for $5 each is your friend. And they say, "hey listen we don't like TJ. So we'd appreciate it if you don't buy apples from him anymore. If you do keep buying apples from him then we won't be friends and your life will get ruined. Also, you should buy apples from me, because look you have no other options"
Then you're now stuck paying $5 per apple and your apple pies have to cost a lot more or you might go out of business altogether due to the cost of apples. That wouldn't be my fault for selling apples to you for 1c each. Those would still be cheap apples. You just got strong armed by your friend into doing something against your own benefit.
Then someone else comes along and says "ok, well I don't sell apples, I just sell apple juice. It's not as good as an apple, and it doesn't have as many uses but you're more virtuous than others if you buy just the juice and not the apple. Now because the juice was so hard to get, I need to charge you 10c/ml of juice." That might seem like a smaller number than your friend if you aren't paying attention, but there's around 250ml of juice in an apple so you're actually paying closer to $25/apples worth of juice and it still doesn't have the benefits of an actual apple.
You would again need to raise prices or, you might go out of business. That's still not my fault, I'm still over here selling apples for 1c each, and you can still choose to buy them from me. You're just choosing not to because you fell into an ideological scam, and your friend is also robbing you blind. The fault there is with your friend for not being a friend, with the snake oil salesman for selling you a scam, and mostly with you, for falling for either of those things.
If you can't figure out who is who in my analogy then that isn't my problem either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I enjoy your videos Jordan. However, there are some factual issues with the claims you make in this video that need to be corrected. They are ongoing claims you've made over several videos which are false claims. After you read my comment in full, please go check through official sources (such as cited legislation) to confirm what I'm saying is true then never make the statements in this video again. Making these claim is MISINFORMATION Please do not spread misinformation.
1. Asylum seeker is a legal term defined first in article 14 of the UDHR and then 3 years later in more detailed terms by the refugee convention, then finally another 12 years later in the 1967 protocol which amended the convention to remove a geographic restriction to Europe. The USA is a signatory to these conventions, and although it has not ratified them it has codified the 1967 protocol taking it's definitions from the refugee convention. Specifically it is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 208 (a)(1).
By all definitions an asylum seeker is explicitly someone of foreign nationality to the host country whom is fleeing war, or is fleeing very specific types of political persecution AND where an IMMEDIATE threat to life can be established. Not all persecution counts, only specific types. Asylum seekers have special rights. When you falsely claim someone as an asylum seeker, you ascribe rights to them they do not factually possess.
2. A refugee is likewise a legal term. It is defined by the same international and domestic legislation as asylum seeker. Specifically INA 101(a)(42) defines a refugee under US domestic law, and it likewise takes its definition from the convention. In all instances, a refugee is an individual who has previously sought asylum in the host country and upon review of the facts by said host country has been found genuine, meets the criteria for asylum (again that's fleeing war or particular types of persecution and can demonstrate an immediate threat to life) and thusly has been granted asylum. That is to say, a refugee is only those people with successful asylum claims and no other people. Refugees have special rights. When you falsely claim someone is a refugee, you ascribe rights to them that they do not actually possess.
3. Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 defines irregular border crossings as a criminal offence punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment in the first instance, and up to 18 months in subsequent instances. Asylum seekers alone have an exception to irregular border crossings, being able to make them lawfully. The same section also makes it a crime to claim asylum to cross the border when you in fact knowingly do not meet the criteria.
4. An impoverished person is NOT and CAN NEVER BE an asylum seeker based on their impoverishment alone. Neither are they a refugee. By definition they are an economic migrant. An economic migrant has no exceptoon to irregular border crossings and thus is committing a crime by making one. That is to say, they are factually illegal economic migrants, and fugitives from federal law enforcement in every instance. Alien is a domestic US legal term you will see pop up in the INA. Illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens as the domestic US legislation puts it, have no special rights, no protections and have no actual right to be in the country. Every single one of them by long established law going back to the 19th century should be deported. That is what the law says should happen.
5. It is a DAILY total of 2500 that triggers a closure, but it resets every day. If it drops below 1500 people trying to get across in the same day as a closure, then it resets. Meaning when there's a closure, they just have to all walk away from the border for an hour then come back and another 2500 can go through.
6. The new executive order has 5 exemptions. Namely
(A) Unaccompanied minors can still apply for asylum. Not only does this encourage lying, but it also encourages parents to send their children unaccompanied en masse. Obama has this same problem which led to the Trump "kids in cages" scandal as they tried to stop the flood of children.
(B) Trafficking victims (including all forms of trafficking) can apply for asylum.
(C) Where an asylum seeker can state a "very high" fear of returning to their home country, the daily limit won't apply
(D) A migrant with a valid CBP One appointment can cross regardless of daily totals. Given these appointments can be made online the day before, it means they can use these to get across the border.
(E) This one is perhaps the most important exemption. Encounters with CBP which result in expulsion, such as crossing through a hole in the fence, DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE DAILY TOTAL
7. The executive order applies ONLY to entries via the southern border. Entries made via any other port, such as an air port are not restricted in any way by this executive order. An economic migrant can still travel via plane on a tourist visa for example, then claim asylum at the airport or after entry to the USA so long as they are inside their visa validity.
8. If you cross through a hole in the fence and make it to NYC, you have NOT been identified and thus your ability to make an asylum claim can not be restricted. I understand it isn't you making the claim otherwise and you're just repeating what the Biden administration have said. However to not contextualise it, is indeed a form of misinformation.
9. It has NEVER been legal for asylum seekers to work immediately upon entry to the USA. Ever. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) you mentioned did NOT make it illegal for asylum seekers or migrants without a work permit to work in the USA. It was ALREADY illegal. What IRCA did was introduce tougher penalities for EMPLOYERS who hired UNDOCUMENTED migrants.
That is, the penalties for knowingly hiring someone who had snuck in through the proverbial hole in the fence increased. It also introduced an exemption for instances where the illegal migrant had presented believable fake work permits to the employer. But it was always illegal. The INA signed 1952 for example had already made these things illegal.
INA had amendments in 1996 under Bill Clinton which further increased penalties for illegal immigration and for employers knowingly hiring them.
10. An illegal immigrant participating in "day labour", that is off the books work doing labour for the day, is committing further crimes under the INA. All the people protesting are criminal fugitives.
Please review, fact check, then stop with the misinformation.
In terms of my personal opinion, trying to give illegal immigrants rights does not solve any problems nor is it actually compassion. It is a form of colonalism. It isn't the weakest and least capable coming illegally. Indeed it's the inverse.
That means by allowing these people in, you rob their source countries of any chance to ever develop economically and thus doom the inhabitants to perpetual poverty. The existing, long established laws are the most compassionate. One can send monetary, food or resource based aid without requiring emigration. Similarly, one can volunteer their time and skills to either donate labour directly or provide training again without requiring emigration. That is GENUINE help.
It is clear this executive order is a cynical response to election polling data predicting a landslide win for Trump largely off flow on issues from unchecked immigration. It is however designed in such a way as to have little tangible impact on immigration numbers. Just to be seen to be doing something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is important to acknowledge that Ticketmaster go into venues and get exclusive agreements with them. Usually they paint a pretty picture, and by the time the venue realises the truth they're already tied into a 20, 30 or 50 year contract they can't get out of.
Those agreements mean if anyone want to do anything at their venue, the tickets MUST be sold via Ticketmaster. The promoters have no choice in the matter.
Ticketmaster aren't stupid, they've done this to 90% of the major venues across the countries they operate in. So if you want a large volume venue you have no choice but to have your tickets sold through Ticketmaster.
This includes city stadiums where Ticketmaster sell their services as saving the city money, but by the time the city learns what's going on they're stuck. Not all venues fall for it this though.
So what's important is that if your city or state is building a stadium, that voters make clear to the authority in charge, that voters do not want Ticketmaster to have exclusive ticketing rights. That the stadium itself should sell tickets.
If the stadium is being built by a private entity through government subsidy, that's a different matter and you have no say in ticketing contracts.
What should also be noted is cities fund large venues because they actually do bring in huge volumes of indirect auxiliary revenues over the long term for each event that occurs at the venue. For example, have you ever noticed parking enforcement rules change in the areas around a venue when an event is on and increase enforcement presence? That's not coincidence, the city are actively revenue raising through parking infringements.
Businesses in the area of the venue benefit directly from events, which then flow into tax revenues. Public transit fees for all the people trying to avoid parking infringements also go to the city. So on and so forth. There's heaps of benefits to a city for having a large venue. If the venue is owned by the city they also get to rake in all the hire fees, service fees, etc. The vendors on site during the event are often owned by the venue so the procedes go back to the city. Etc. Cities make a LOT of money from large venues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roflmao. The nativity of the OPis very amusing. Somehow believes the EU and UK are the world police, has brought in to the transparent propaganda
These two have only just called a cease fire last month. They've been shelling each other for the last 3 years. No western intervention.
There are dozens of millitary conflicts raging on "the EUs doorstep", barely even media coverage let alone western intervention.
The EU and the UK, like the USA, only intervene in conflicts where there is clear benefit for them.
A country can't just force themselves onto two or more countries in conflict, they have to be invited and the need leverage. Countries certainly can't just invade sovereign borders on a whim because they don't like a conflict. That would be aboth a crime against humanity and a war crime.
The UK and EU won't get involved in Azerbaijan taking back it's territory without even using military force. There's nothing to get involved in. It was annexed by Armenia in '92 and now Azerbaijan have taken it back. There's nothing to intervene in.
Honestly if you based your view of the EU and UK on just the nonsense they say, then one would expect both to be supporting Russia in returning Ukraine to it's people, and stopping the internal bloodshed. But they don't, because supporting a literal dictator responsible for the deaths of 14K of his own people and an end to democracy is beneficial to western europe. They see all the money to be made in supporting Zelenskyy, so they do. Neither the EU or the UK intervened in the 2014 violent coup d'etat that started the Ukraine conflict. Why? Because leaving Ukraine as it was when democratic it was a close ally of Russia. By allowing local organised crime to take control and install their dictator, Ukraine turned towards the west, a strategic advantage for NATO and an opportunity for the west to exploit them for profit.
Welcome to the real world, there are no "good guys" just countries looking out for themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know why Banks called it Charles's Angles. It has nothing in common with the original series.
The original series is about a mysterious man who uses the pseudonym Charlie. He's rich, well connected and knows some dirty secrets. He also has enemies. So he creates a PRIVATE DETECTIVE AGENCY and staffs it with 3 BEAUTIFUL WOMEN.
His employees never see his face or know his identity, instead he communicates with them through a speaker phone. He also has an assistant named John Bosley, who also hasn't met Charlie but does his bidding and coordinates the other employees day to day.
Like a manager. Bosley isn't a spy, in fact he's often a hapless coward played as comedy relief. But he also sometimes stumbled his way into saving the angels at just the right moment. The 3 beautiful women are way out of Bosley's league so there's never any sxual tension. As they're a detective agency they sometimes take private cases but it somehow always manages to circle back to Charlie's enemies. Charlie's angels is like love boat if it was a detective agency and there were mild fight scenes. It was prime time programming, so it was a light hearted, sometimes funny, action adventure mixed with a detective mystery. It's called Charlie's Angels because that's the name of the detective agency, but also because they're hot women who work for Charlie.
Now contrast it with what Banks made. Suddenly they're government spies. Suddenly they assassinate people. Suddenly Charlie doesn't exist anymore and Bosley is in charge, powerful, skilled and dangerous. It's all about in fighting in the spy agency. None of the women involved are beautiful. The original starred Farah Fawvett ffs.
They're completely different in premise and execution. Banks shouldn't have called it Charlie's Angels. She should have given it another name and left it to stand on its own as a feminist spy movie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenparker8250 What on earth are you talking about? Self sufficient argiculture in the UK predates Stonehenge. UK agriculture too is a key driver in the rise of the British empire. It had nothing to do with WW2.
If one is alone, just you, the amount of food one needs will be dramatically less than if they have a growing family, or invite friends over. The amount of people dictates the amount of food production required. The same concepts apply equally to overall national population. The population of Britain has doubled since WW2. Enter industrialised farming.
Not because something the UK was doing changed but because it's the ONLY way to feed a population at this scale. Yeild has to increase. Without farmers, everyone starves. Population is continuing to rise, almost exclusively through unprecedented immigration.
If the UK suddenly became a net importer, as you appear to be advocating then, beyond the economic devastation that could cause, all that would be achieved is outsourcing an even bigger environmental disaster to someone else. Why would it be bigger? Because it would concentrate industrial farming for the local region plus the UK into a relatively small geographic region instead of spreading it out as it currently is. This is of course without considering the cO2 cost of all those imports.
Farming is not the problem, population is. A lower population would require farming at a far less intensive scale. Remember, the UK is a comparatively tiny island chain that is only ecologically capable of sustaining ~6M people, and yet there are almost 70M present, 11X the population the area can sustain. I get it, you want beavers for whatever reason.
But just think for a moment. Remove farmers from the equation for a moment. What do you think happens to beaver habitat as the population of the UK continues to grow? All those people have to live somewhere. The problem is there are too many people. We keep using technology to overcome natural population bust and it's destroying our environment permanently.
If you really care about beavers, then you have to recognise that the UK doesn't just need to halt population growth, it needs to institute population decline. Every country does. That's been the consensus conclusion of climate science since 1962, and the underlined point of every IPCC annual report since their inception in 1988.
If you care about the environment more broadly, its probably worth noting that during the course of our exchange all the systems required to facilitate it produced the equivalent cO2 emissions as driving 20 minutes, roughly the equivalent to a average commute to work. The internet as a whole prpduces cO2 emissions equivalent to 6.75 round the world commercial flights EACH HOUR. This too is a scale problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do none of you get it? There is no such thing as "human rights" and never has been. It's a concept born out of political double speak. A tool to justify the otherwise unjustifiable , to sell it to their people and the world. To find ways to turn competitors into enemies.
Use your heads, if you actually had some inalienable human rights we wouldn't need a document to declare that, and we certainly wouldn't need anyone to defend it. Wake up from your fantasy, you have only the rights that those in power choose for you to have, and only so long as it's convenient to them that you have such rights.
193 countries in the UN, and yet resolutions they pass in the GA are not binding. It's only the subcommittees led by the UK, and US that have the power to comoel. Same with the international banking system, world trade and international logistics. It's a rigged game all designed to keep a small number of very wealthy people, from a select group of countries in power, in control, and becoming wealthier by the day.
You unequivocally do not have "human rights", it's made up. Stop believing in fairytales
1
-
There is absolutely nothing illegal about the war in Ukraine. It does not violate any international law and the UN has been exceptionally clear on this point.
Every time someone claims it's illegal, whether it's the Tories, Labour, Channel 4, whoever, they are out and out lying. It is empty propaganda designed to try to elicit an emotional response so people will support something against their own interests and nothing more.
Sunak can't stand up and wipe his hands of responsibility over inflation by claiming it's because of the war in Ukraine, then turn around and say he can get inflation under control. Those things are incompatible with each other.
The war in Ukraine itself isn't a factor in inflation, frankly Ukraine isn't that important in the global economy so as to have any impact on developed nations or economic markets. It's the SANCTIONS on Russia that cause the inflation. Remove the sanctions, normalise relations with Russia, inflation will get back under control rapidly, almost overnight.
But Sunak is sitting here saying that the UK won't lift sanctions and will continue to pour money it doesn't have into Ukraine at the expense of it's citizens, and for what? For what?
So an unelected dictator whom seized control via violent coupe can repel a foreign force protecting the civilians in that country from the countries own military? Tell me how that's any different than Afghanistan and the Taliban? Only now we're on the side of the Taliban in this analogy and crippling our economies in it's aid.
It's only a matter of time before the west turn on Zelenskyy, when it's in western interests to do so. All this suffering that we're doing is for nothing. It's there to make the rich at the top richer and nothing more. End the stupid sanctions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexanderromanov737 I think you've missed something Alexander. They're ALL paid above average wages. Teachers, they're paid well above average wages.
The recruitment issue isn't about pay, it never was and it's reductive of the unions to try to pretend it is. Want some evidence of this? Head over to the government immigration website and check out the skills shortages list.
Read through it, you'll find they're all skilled occupations on above average pay. Despite that high pay they're having trouble getting people into these professions. Meanwhile other occupations are overly represented.
These are roles you have to choose in high school that you want to pursue. You have to do the right prerequisites and spend years studying them at uni or doing an apprenticeship/traineeship, before you can enter the job market. To make that happen they need to know these professions are an option, have parents at home encouraging them, and have a support network of peers and school staff reinforcing that pathway. Kids don't have that.
So you have three main camps of youth across the OECD now.
1. Those who feel if they're going to do all that study and put in all that effort then they want to be in the top 1% of earners. We see that in the oversupply of graduates in these industries.
2. Those who don't see why they should put in any effort at all, so they go for a low responsibility dead end job or they neet, aka the so called "lay flat" movement
3. The virtual workers. These are people who either try to make a career as a so called "influencer" or they enter some kind of field where they can work from home over the internet 100% of the time. This group will only grow, it's the future of employment. They could probably be leveraged in some of these skill shortage occupations if those occupations were updated into the 21st century. There's no reason teachers can't teach from home via video link for example. CoVID demonstrated that.
Then you have a small number of kids flowing into these roles well below the number required.
When we're talking about 65-100K vacant positions in teaching, we have to put that into the context of the TRAINING those people have to get.
You also have the reality that the UK isn't actually a very nice place to live. So when people realise their skills are in demand in more desirable countries, they pack up and leave. That isn't about pay either, it's about geography, culture, and a complex sea of ideology.
You can't just throw money at hard problems and hope they go away. That won't fix them. Particularly when the UK is bankrupt and has been since 2000 under the labour blair government. Every year the government is borrowing money to pay for basic services and to pay existing debt.
Do you know train drivers and conductors can choose if they want to show up to work or not, and still get paid regardless? If one doesn't turn up, even if the other does, the train can't run. It's why so many services get cancelled. When the government tried to attach to a pay deal the conditions that either rail workers must turn up to their shifts or the train can still go with just a driver, the union threw the pay deal in the bin then went around saying the government blocked the pay deal. It's simply not true. What would happen if you didn't turn up to work without a valid excuse Alexander? Reckon you'd keep your job? Reckon you'd still get paid?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iapetusmccool What an interesting pseudonym you're hiding behind.
You're wrong and naive .
The union bosses chose to strike then whipped up their members until they agreed. Union bosses are greedy swines. Their members didn't just organically start approaching the union bosses because they couldn't afford as many luxuries during a temporary inflationary spike. It was the other way around, union bosses looking to capitalise on higher members dues through higher wages.
Essential services aren't allowed to strike in many countries around the world, and yet they continue to be adequately staffed and industrial relations disputes are handled via other means. Strikes are far from the only tool in an IR toolbelt.
Being an essential worker comes with just as many extra responsibilities as it does extra rights. Strikes for essential workers should be illegal, particularly now they've demonstrated they are responsible people.
Here are some examples from other countries for you.
In many yankville states it is illegal for police to strike. During the defund the police riots, a small organised section of police in those states took coordinated sick leave. However they did it responsibly. They only took half their shifts off and never so many staff off that it caused any damage. The intent was only to demonstrate the problems a defunded police force might introduce to society.
In NSW Australia, nurses were protesting over pay. They hadn't received the equivalent to a 3.5% pay increase nurses under the NHS got. Instead they'd been on a pay freeze for the whole of the pandemic. But they also actually care about their patients so they protest responsibly. It was 1/5th of nurses on the picket, many were off duty (came to the picket directly after their shift), so hospitals had very little disruption. But when you have all those nurses marching around demanding just for an increase in hospital funding, not talking about inflation at all, just asking for better conditions, more staff, more resources. That's responsible.
In the NHS you have 2/3 of nurses striking, causing critical care emergencies because they want to somehow cancel out inflation through pay increases because they want to afford more holidays.
Get
Real
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SharatS LLMs haven't taken jobs, there was just a flurry of over hiring and the market is righting itself.
You are right, productivity gains do in the short term reduce staff numbers, but they also come before growth. A business becomes more efficient, gains productivity, makes more money, then uses that capital to take on more, larger, or more complex projects. That triggers hiring. And so the process repeats ad infinitum
The work that is required may change. You may need to undertake some minor to moderate retraining to make the most of the new opportunities. But they will be there and aplenty so long as base economic variables remain healthy.
A recession will cause layoffs and stall growth, but that's a symptom of wider market forces and bad governance, not AI. Recessions are also temporary, regardless of how they feel. On the other side, it returns to productivity gain, then growth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's interesting reading through the comments, how many people take what they see in a video as fact, without regard to the biases of the production, tone, etc. They just lap it up and parrot it as fact. This comments sectiom is essentially the same comment said over and over in slightly different ways.
Imagine if leaders in yankville, Germany and the UK were represented this way by media without regard to the distinction between domestic rhetoric and actual foreign policy. No world leader nor candidate in existence and thoroughout history would have a coherent platform if that were how these things actually went. The UK defence secretary talked about his vision of fighting wars in Russia and China at the same time in parliament this week. Imagine if DW applied the same logic to that as they are to Milei.
What you say to your people and what your actual policies/backroom negotiations are, are very different things. Milei isn't saying he wants to cut ties with Brazil and China in that speech, he's not talking about actual foreign policy or ideology. He's not softening his approach or being inconsistent. In the speech he's issuing domestic rhetoric. He's saying that Argentina will align itself economically with western capitalism. That the communist era nationalised industries and state welfare will be dismantled. He's talking about domestic policy not foreign policy. He's letting Argentineans know that big changes are coming (and necessary) to save the economy. That the age of state ownership, nationalisation and welfare are over. That the state is going to get smaller, and investor (mostly foreign) are going to be buying into these industries.
Make no mistake, China will be a major investor into profitable industries being de-nationalised, but so with the west and that's what Milei is counting on, all that foreign investment, and foreign currency flowing into Argentina to stabilise the currency and get inflation under control.
Stop conflating domestic rhetoric with foreign policy. They're very different things. If they were the same, Biden calling Xi a dictator recently would have triggered an end to US-Sino trade relations and a free fall collapse of the yankvillian economy (and the rest of the west along with it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonybennett4159 Please don't treat me as a fool, I an intimately acquainted with asylum law. Transit countries have nothing to do with this. The problem is not transit countries, the problem is the overwhelming majority of claimants are economic migrants exploiting the system. And the problem is the ECHR gives them an additional loophole to be granted leave to stay after their application for asylum has been denied.
As previously discussed, subsection 11.1 of the memorandum of understanding allows for the UK to bring successful asylum applicants back to the UK from Rwanda.
Your personal interpretation of a speech, not any of the actual documents themselves, given by someone who isn't even on the front bench anymore, let alone the home secretary is entirely irrelevant to the matter. Read the full memorandum of understanding, it is widely available online.
What politicians say in speeches doesn't matter, what matters are the words in the legal documents and contracts those speeches are about. Quite often the speeches bare little resemblance to the actual documents.
The home office estimates less than 1% of applicants sent to Rwanda will be successful based on existing data and deportation plans. It's between 300-1000 people a year. 11.1 is a prevision for those people.
If you're an economic migrant however, you're unlikely to keep trying to come if you'll just end up in a worse situation in Rwanda. Particularly when the EU is unlikely to get its act together on immigration before the end of the decade, so you could just exploit the EU instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenwalker2924 Beyond your fundamental misunderstanding of inflation, your initial premise is outright false. Wages are not "record breaking lows right now". In fact all wages everywhere are the highest they've ever been in history. That's how wage growth works.
You may be confused with the term real wages which the media shouldn't be throwing around without real economic explanation. It's just caused more damage. Real wages is essentially the buying power of your wages. Inflation is the devaluation of currency, which means the money in your pay packet is worth less and as a conversation to CPI thus has less buying power.
So whenever there's high inflation, real wages are lower even though actual wages increase. The more actual wages increase, the higher inflation goes and thus the lower real wages become.
The only way to fix the issue is to freeze wages, control surplus cash in the economy and most importantly increase productivity. Productivity is not growth. Growth makes things worse. Productivity is the same staff producing more product, whatever it is the business sells. So if for example we want to talk about the NHS, higher productivity would mean increasing the number of patients seen in a day without increasing costs, and thus clearing the backlog.
In terms of the railway, it means drivers actually showing up to their shifts and, well let's just start with running 99% of scheduled services and go from there.
If you work in manufacturing of some kind, it means making statistically significant more of whatever is being manufactured per shift than before. If you work in an office it means getting through more of your assigned tasks. You get the idea. The key is more output without anymore costs.
When people strike, productivity becomes zero and that is inflationary. So the best thing everyone can do right now is
1. Boo the unions for striking. Demand they get back to work
2. Be more efficient and productive at work
3. For those who can afford it, regularly donate to food banks and other such charities helping those on the lower socioeconomic scale get through this period. If you can't afford to donate to these charities, perhaps you can give up some leisure time to volunteer.
The only way everyone gets through this is by standing together, shoulder to shoulder, and the financially strong lifting up those whom have collapsed with essentials.
1
-
1
-
@JohnDoe-qj3iv YT Premium is extremely popular, especially with people who own Nest Home speakers. Only shall we say, certain types of people don't pay for YT premium.
A phones "modem" is not the only connection it has. For a phone to function it has to connect using a plethora of different radios.
You've got the cellular band radio, the GPS radio, the Bluetooth radio and the WiFi radio. Each of those can and is used to track you, and that's just in a dumb phone. In a smartphone you've got 20 or so more radio sensors that can be used to track you.
But let's say you decide to throw your phone away. You're still being tracked by a network of cameras, stuck in digital signage. Most digital signs you see have an array of 5-9 cameras in each direction, and utilise facial recognition technology to track your movements around the area. They count the number of microseconds you look at the sign and where you look after, they log how frequently you pass, what direction you're moving in, how many times you pass, whether time of day or weather impacts your movements, etc, etc. So much more.
You'll find them in shopping centres, train stations, public transit hubs, open malls, petrol stations, anywhere people are. Then on top of that you have the cities network of CCTV cameras, many of which also deploy facial recognition technology, as well as licence plate recognition technology to track people and vehicles around the city.
Paying with a credit/debit/bank card is used by your bank to track you and build up a profile on you based on your purchase history and deposit cycle. That's why Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Square and Paypal wanted into that space. By acting as a middleman between you and your bank they're also able to collect that information about you and build those profiles. They let them know what stores you're in, but more importantly when. What conditions.
Digital public transport cards and instore loyalty cards do the same thing. And there's hundreds of other ways you're tracked in person, every day.
But let's say you decide ok I'm going to throw away my phone and my lifestyle, I'll go bush and live away from society. No joy there either. You'll have to contend with the army of patrol drones, helicopters, satellite imagining and staff the national parks department use to keep bushland safe, crime free, control permits and to spot fires.
Even on farms they've got GPS this, Bluetooth that. It's all tracking. John Deer doesn't let them mess with their software in the vehicles because the software has back to base commands.
Privacy is conclusively over, it isn't possible anymore. Not even inside your own home. It ended in the 90s, and it's never coming back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DonoZeek You appear to be a little confused there mate. What I've said is the reality, even Pelosi has now come out making clear she does not support an independent Taiwan.
Taiwan is a province of China and it has been one since the end of the civil war. The entire world agrees on that and it sits inside of the internationally recognised Chinese waters. China can shell Taiwan all day long and they remain inside their own territory.
Taiwan is to China, what Texas, New York or California are to yankville. It isn't physically or legally possible for China to invade their own territory.
I'd also like to point out that Russia did not want not, nor initially had intention of invading Ukraine. They were baited by yankville and Ukraine from March 2021 starting with the entrance of the Biden administration.
One has to understand that Ukraine has had forces on the Russian border since 2014, and they have been murdering their own citizens in the Donbas for that entire period. Donetsk and Luhansk are democratic states inside the Donbas region whom have chosen through democratic referendum to seek secession from Ukraine, to become independent micronations.
If you want to compare this to China and Taiwan, Ukraine is China, where Donetsk and Luhansk are Taiwan only in far worse shape because they're shot at daily by Ukrainian forces whilst going about their normal civilian daily tasks.
Russia stood up for these states and supports their independence. That was the driving force and legal justification for Russian forces to enter Ukraine. It is a justification recognised by the UN.
In contrast yankville does not support Taiwanese independence, indeed the opposite they want Taiwan to stay as it is now. Capable of providing semiconductors freely, but with just enough distance from the CCP that they can't hold semiconductors over the wests heads..
The rise of the US/EU technology trade forum puts in doubt how much longer yankville and the EU will continue to support Taiwan at all, as the first priority of the forum is semiconductor independence by the end of this decade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really do wonder what the people in this thread imagine processing a claim actually means. I mean, you are all aware this isn't like getting a passport right?
We're talking about people who turn up without documentation and ask to stay under the rules of the UDHR and the refugees convention. So the first step is to verify beyond reasonable doubt who the person is. Without documentation that take time, far longer than the prescribed 28 days. This process involves finding out where they're actually from, where their house was, finding people still there who knew them, etc. When we're talking about a small disorganised village in an undeveloped country that's hard.
Next they have to determine whether their source country is at war under the legal definition. That too takes time because it's often a complicated process. If they're at war, they have to determine the scale of the war and whether it meets the requirements for asylum under statute.
If the country isn't at war they have to determine if the person is being persecuted by their country for a protected trait. That can take a seriously long time because it involves talking to the source country, and other countries to try to figure out what's going on. It can involve using intelligence services, where an intelligence officer has to physically go there undercover to determine if the cases from that place with that trait really are being persecuted.
Then they need to determine if the person is escaping prosecution, not persecution. That is, are they a criminal? Criminals are not allowed asylum under the terms of the refugee convention. They also have to determine if the claimant has committed a war crime or a human rights abuse, or has a family member that has. Figuring that out in the best of circumstances is hard, but claimants come under the worst case scenarios. So again this involves diplomatic channels, intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, the UN, it's a complicated process.
That's why these claims take time. At it's most basic they need to be reasonably sure that the person is who they say they are, is actually eligible for asylum and isn't a criminal. Those are not fast things to do, it's not just random bureaucracy. Then you throw lawyers and the courts in on top. You can't just click your fingers and make that process faster.
How interesting it is that no one has bothered too look closer at those leave to stay figures. Only 13% from the boats are found to be genuine refugees and granted such a status. The remainder of those granted leave to stay receive it under compassionate grounds in line with the ECHR. There is a provision here which compels leave to stay on claimants even when they are not found to be genuine if by the time their claim has been denied they can show they have developed roots in the community, a home, friends, a job, participation in volunteer work (which is usually helping at an asylum seeker non-profit), then it's considered unreasonable to deport them under the ECHR.
That is a loophole that tens of thousands of unskilled economic migrants are exploiting every year. Because they are unskilled or low skilled and on precarious grounds with their ability to stay, they then become exploited in the workplace with below minimum wages. This puts downward pressure on wages overall.
That's why governments all over the world, not just the UK and regardless of political affiliation, want to limit the number of migration of no and low skilled migrants. It's why they focus on skilled migration, particularly in skill shortage sectors. The latter drives up productivity, stabilising the economy (and inflation) and fuelling wage growth.
That was the point of the rwanda policy. To stop illegal economic migration, by shifting them to a country in a worse economic state than they came from. That stops illegal economic migration and ensures only legitimate asylum claimants come through (which is a trickle, less than 10K a year).
1
-
1
-
1
-
France Timberland is mistaken. The resource wars he is talking about have already begun and are inevitable to continue. Regardless of what we do now, in the future people will wage war over water, there is no changing that without massive global population reductions and no one wants to volunteer for that.
Humanity is experiencing the most artificial, massively overboard population boom of any species on earth. There's 16x the natural global population of humans on earth, 16x! The UN predicts the population boom to grow to 22x the natural global population by 2050. The more there are of us, and the higher the standard of living for each individual, the thinner those resources have to be stretched. It's a physical limitation.
So I'm sorry but people are going to keep having babies, then we're going to see wars over food and water. And more importantly if we're going to keep having babies then we're going to see a perpetual need for climate action.
For the sake of illustration if you have emissions at 100 at current population, then add in 50% more people, you're now going to be making emissions at 150 without changing any behaviour. It's a losing game until you do something about population, particularly in the developing world where we see the most population growth.
Edit: When France Timberland says that there is no connection between the ETS and energy prices he's being disingenuous. A price on carbon emissions means the consumer pays more for that thing, that's the entire point. It's an economic lever to change consumer behaviour through rising cost, or in other words you use less because that's all you can afford. If the ETS price goes up, so to do consumer prices. To claim there is no link between the ETS going up and a rise in prices is a lie because he knows otherwise. He's correct that it isn't the whole story however.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She's not very eloquent.
37:49 I think what she means to say is that the host is presenting a false equivalency. The host is trying to claim that what she said about Islam is the equivalent of someone who wears a red hat, and so because people who wear red hats sometimes where blue pants, therefore everyone who wears a red hat musr wear jeans.
Or, to use his example, to believe that men and women are biologically different must mean they somehow support people who agree but also believe something else. That's not remotely like what she's saying. There is no logical connection. Believing A does not mean you believe B, nor does A support the conclusion of B. Those two groups are naturally separated.
To fix the hosts question, it's like saying that you and others believe "women are inferior to men", AND that "women should not vote". That ALL parties involved hold both those beliefs and critically believe that holding such beliefs are morally good, then a subset of that group say, because we believe in A & B, we think that when people disagree with those beliefs we should detain them or harm them or do whatever they come up with.
So the logic is A + B = morality, therefore C. Now whilst all members of the group may not wish to act on C, it is logically consistent with the beliefs held and is therefore natural that some people will take such a position. Therefore A + B cannot be separated from C because they are foundational beliefs which naturally lead to C
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She's right with the exception of one critical point. Yankville does NOT have an empire. Period. It never has, and likely never will. In recent times it's citizens like to believe it has an empire because then that at least makes all the suffering somewhat paletable.
But the reality is there is no yankville empire, and before you race to disagree with me ask yourself where that empire is. What territory does yankville DIRECTLY control outside itself? Not states that that are influenced by yankville, actual territory. You can't, because there isn't any.
Yankville is a semiautonomous puppet state of the BRITISH empire and it has been since 1933. That isn't a matter of speculation, opinion or hyperbole. One only needs to read the treaties between yankville and the UK, particularly those relating to finance, currency, security/war and foreign policy. It's all there in legally binding black and white.
Every last thing yankville has that has resulted in its success in the world was given to it by the UK and importantly in a manner in which the UK can take it back. The greenback did not get reserve currency status by magic. No it wasn't some altruistic gesture from a "dying" empire. The UK remains the centre of global finance today, it waved its hand and granted yankville reserve currency status in return for control.
All the technology, all the imported know how, all the say around the world, it's all at the discretion of the UK. The true history of yankville is it fought a war of independence, tried that for awhile, failed and went back to being partially controlled by the UK.
The UK still has direct territorial control over tens of countries. Even more are still part of the British monarchy and thus sovereign to the UK. Canada and Australia fall into this category, their head of state is King Charles.
The world wars drained the UK economy defending Europe in a way they wanted to ensure would never happen again. That's the entire point of the north atlantic treaty and NATO the organisation that administers it. Read the treaty, it gives control to the UK. The UN exists to protect the British empire too.
Using yankville as an attack dog gives the UK cover for continued colonialism. Look closely around the world, the UK still engages in colonial empire, yankville does not. It just spends money fighting wars that allow British colonialism. It isn't an accident that the pound is always worth more than the dollar, and that the globe lost its mind and panicked when Liz Truss tanked the pound.
So yes, yankville is focused on empire just not their empire it's a focus on fulfilling the bidding of the British empire.
Edit: Also one other small point, yankville doesn't make anything anymore. It is no longer abundant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More laughable coverage by CH4.
Lord Goldsmith could fund the entirety of the changes he wants out of his own bank account, and still live comfortably for generations. It's always the out of touch elites who push these things at the expense of everyone else.
It's always so interesting how CH4 want to keep issues that are deeply interconnected, separate. In typical activist mentality they want all the things, even though they contradict each other.
Immigration is deeply linked to the destruction of the environment. Britain is an island, and as such there is only so much room on the island. As you increase population, there is as a function of physical existence less room for wilderness. There are only so many things that can physically fit and something has to give.
Industrial farming is required to support that massive population. When governments subsidise unprofitable farming, that is not a success. Farming has to be profitable for it to be worthwhile, otherwise you're just engaging in market manipulation which impacts exports and makes continued farming lose it's value. Perhaps more importantly you can't get the same yield.
That farming does of course have an environmental impact. You can't expect to feed all of those people and not have a negative environmental impact. You can't expect to regulate out the harmful practices of farming and still expect to feed all of those people. It's basic physics and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that.
It's a similar story with the water systems. We're talking about systems designed in the victorian era to accommodate 8 million (the max the UK can naturally support mind you) being used by some 67 million people. Fixing that, without even considering cost would take decades to physically achieve, be obsolete upon completion and still fail to protect the environment. In fact more environment would be destroyed updating the systems than is being damaged by it now.
So let's be very clear on rhe science. There are too many people. Too many people in the UK, too many people in the world more broadly. It has been clear on this point since 1962, and every IPCC report since it's inception in '87 states the same. All of these issues, environmental, social, economic, political ,they're all deeply linked to each other. If you genuinely want ro help the environment there is a very simple thing you can do to help. Don't have children. Encourage others in your life to do the same. A single persons contribution in this way can have big outcomes for our world.
Stop supporting illegal immigration too. If you don't, then it's simple. More wild lands will need to be destroyed to make homes for them. More intensive industrial farming will be required to feed them. More overflows will occur because more people will be utilising the systems. More mining will be required to provide resources and products for them to consume. They'll produce even more waste that can't be recycled and net zero will become ever more creative accounting whilst the world continues to burn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bobby-xr4bo lol Yeah, no. The statements in this thread all remain true regardless of whether any particular individual is guilty of any specific crime. What it instead assumes is non-specific guilt in corruption &/or criminal behaviour by all politicians.
Perhaps Peter Murrell is innocent of any wrongdoing in the specific instance being investigated, perhaps he's not. That's quite separate to this thread. Instead the implication is guilty or innocent of this specific charge, Murrell, Sturgeon, Yousaf, Ross, Sarwar, etc have all engaged in dodgy deals and corruption somewhere in their political careers.
This has nothing to do with assumption of innocence which applies only to specific charges. This wouldn't need to be explained to someone with an appropriate level of reading comprehension.
P.S. "I know you are but what am I", particularly when unfounded and illogical, is a retort best left to primary school playgrounds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@horusfalcon We're talking about Apple. Please try to stay on topic.
What I said about tech companies and DEI, also applies to game studios. No industries are collapsing. Some individual companies are making choices for various reasons. The big gaming companies need to fall too so video games can be centred back to their originally intended audience. Children. They are literally toys, after all.
What apple's stockholders decide for its DEI policies won't impact game studios anymore than it will any other company. That is, zero. Apple need to stop existing. They have utterly destroyed innovation in the tech industry over the last 25 years. Not because of woke socialist ideology, but simply because their big saving grace to not go bankrupt in the 90s was to copy the popular things in the market in the cheapest and lamest way possible, gaslight everyone that they came up with them, charge 4x what the competition are asking, build in obsolescence and then try to make people feel less than if they don't buy apple made. It's an abusive relationship and it needs to be stopped.
Symbian 9 was a fully touch screen mobile OS that supported apps from an app store and released 3 years before the iPhone by Nokia. The largest mobile phone maker in the world back then who truly innovated many times over with every generation of phones. But ask someone under 40 who invented the smartphone and they'll almost certainly claim it was Apple. Nokia didn't even invent it, they just innovated on it and made it popular. They ever claimed to have invented it, like Apple do.
To this day you will find large chunks of people who will claim an iPod isn't an mp3 player, that it was something else. Their reasoning is something about the hard drive. But the Nomad Jukebox had a hard drive twice the size of the ipod, plus an fm tuner, mic in, voice recorder and line in with the ability to create your own MP3s from a CD or tape player and it was up to its 5th model by the time the ipod launched with just the hard drive.
Go down the apple product stack and you'll find this trend repeated over and over again. And every time they do it, they squeeze out the creators of that product segment and stifle innovation further.
Look at all the nokia phones. All the shapes. All the designs. Then the iPhone came, Nokia went bankrupt and now all phones are rectangles.
Apple needs to go bankrupt for the benefit of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zelp789 That's a fantasy mate.
It's you not really understanding climate change, physics and math. Listen, I'm not introducing new information in my comment. Population is the accepted cause by the relevant scientific community and has been since 1964. It's why every IPCC report discusses population and growth projections for the 30 year forward estimate. It's why every climate model factors population in The current projection is 11Bn people by 2060.
To put that into perspective, at 9 billion people there isn't enough arable land on earth to feed them all. At 10 billion people there isn't enough fresh water or physical space to house them all.
I'd like you to look up the ecology concept of 'population boom and bust'. There's a unit in a free online course by Cambridge University that might be helpful in understanding the concept, but there are certainly plenty of other quality sources of information around on the subject.
Regardless, it's essential to understand these natural rules of population apply to us too and technology has it's limitations. We will eventually experience a population bust, the only question is whether we'll decide to do it ourselves in a controlled depopulation campaign, or if we'll run blindly into the wall until nature collapses our population for us violently and suddenly, taking tens of thousands of other species along with us in the process. It's our call.
It's important for you to understand, there is NO WAY for humanity to have zero emissions. Not technologically right now. Not physically at any point in time. When politicians talk about net zero they aren't talking about actual zero emissions. They're talking about "offsets" which are really just creative accounting to zero out a balance sheet without actually reducing emissions. Countries with low productivity and thus low to no emissions sell airspace in a pristine forest somewhere to countries with high emissions. They take on their carbon emissions on paper without actually changing anything on the ground. That's net zero.
Actual zero would be the end of our species.
Look the average person exhales 1.04kg of cO2 per day. That's not very much. But 8 billion humans all exhaling is 8,346,096 metric ton of carbon each day just from breathing. The more people we add the higher that number goes. No, 8.3M ton is not a huge amount in comparison to some other emitters but it isn't an insignificant amount either. You'll always be emitting.
Industry will always be emitting. The internet will always be emitting. Manufacturing PV solar and wind turbines will always be emitting and in addition will also always be creating a toxic mess from rare earths.
You can complain about industrial ag all day, but at these population levels it's what's required to keep humanity fed at current population levels. It will need to become more intensive by the second half of this century if we're to avoid famines.
Population is and always has been the problem. It's just less confronting to people to talk about the symptoms than it is the cause. The truth is we need to depopulate, back down to under 1 billion globally. That isn't my number mate, that's the scientific consensus based on almost 60 years of modelling data. The human and moral way to achieve that is through cultural change to incentivise people to choose not to have children. No force, just popular choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arresting more people because you're solving more crimes as the statistics verify, and the very video you're commenting on discusses not one, not twice, not thrice, but four times throughout,is absolutely a sign of greater police effectiveness.
Arrests are up 52% and convictions are up 30%. That's 30% more crimes solved. 1/3rd more cases closed, each year.
This coverage isn't claiming these improvements aren't great. It's claiming the police training, resources and funding, along with the resources, staffing and funding of the greater legal system need work. Obviously though that isn't going to happen over night, but all the plans for that to happen are in place. So really this is what you call a low fruit story, a cheap whack at a system in transition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gusmanue8337 Are you a millennial or a zoomer? Which one?
1. The GFC was not the "biggest financial crisis in human history" 🤣 Not by a long way. It wasn't even the biggest financial crisis of the centhry. Compared to the financial crisis' in all of human history the GFC was a blip.
2. Deflation wasn't inevitable from the GFC. Without the lower cash rate for all that time the economy would be completely in the toilet, unemployment would have hit double digits and covid would have collapsed everything completely. Seriously, that isn't an answer at all. The low cash rate was the appropriate response, and keeping it low whilst the economy has been struggling was also appropriate.
3. The low cash rate has not created the housing bubble. The housing bubble is created by a bunch of factors. But the biggest contributor is highly controlled artificial demand which is greater than supply by just enough to keep the market hot and property values increasing within set. It's controlled through Westminster via carefully configured policy settings for things like immigration, land releases and the big one, quota based housing affordability schemes. These things, but in particular housing affordability schemes, create artificial demand for inflated prices that the market would not naturally bear. Ironically it's the housing market that would experience deflation without the affordability schemes, as the market would cool to prices people could afford. This is actually the most universal source of corruption one could point to in politics, because they do this out of self interest. They all own investment properties.
4. This high inflationary event wasn't caused by the low cash rate at all. It was caused by a complex combination of factors with the biggest factors being the sanctions placed on Russia triggering a global oil and gas supply chain issue and low overall long term productivity across the economy. Those yankville led Russian sanctions by the way, caused Europe to switch from Russian gas, to inferior yankvillian shale gas which saved their struggling sector. Shale gas has 1/8th the energy storage and is 4x more expensive. It's so bad that after signing the EU away to yankvillian shale gas, Macron rushed to Algeria to knock out a deal between France, Algeria and Russia to backdoor buy Russian gas through Algeria. They didn't even try to hide it, it was all over France24 at the time. A week later, Germany struck a deal with France that France would buy Russian gas through Algeria and sell some of it to Germany. This keeps their gas dependent industries competitively cheaper than the rest of Europe.
5. Inflation is stalling because of wage growth in the face of almost flat productivity.
1
-
0:24 Why can you manage to play the radio call of a dog on the lose, but you can not play the radio call of the beat cops reply? Instead we just have to take your word for it that it's what they said? Given how frequently CH4 lie, I'm not about to just trust you.
Let's summarise the two narratives here and you can be the judge of which situation sounds more realistic.
The MET say
---------------------
Two people were arguing in the street, an older lady and a young male. The older lady was accusing the young male of stealing her phone. The older lady saw police and flagged them down, she then repeated her allegation of the young male stealing her phone.
Police attempted to detain the young male to question him and search his person for the accused stolen property. The young male then physically assaulted both officers and attempted to flee the scene.
At this point a K9 officer was deployed to assist in the apprehension of the now suspect. Police subsequently subdued and detained the suspect. Appropriate medical aid was rendered. At this stage the older lady withdrew her complaint and refused to press charges. Without a complaint, officers were unable to complete an arrest.
The version given in this video
---------------------------------------------------
An older lady and a younger male were having a civil discussion in the street about a funny, innocent mix up regarding their phones. The older lady inexplicably flagged down a police car, presumably because she thought they might enjoy the humerous story of how she thought he took her phone but really it was his phone and she was mistaken.
Before she had a chance to communicate this story to them, and without any words exchanged a police officer suddenly appeared next to the young male and grabbed him by the top of his arm.
Still without any words exchanged a dog randomly appeared attached to the young mans arm within seconds of the officer grabbing him. With a dog biting him, this caused the young man to fear for his life, so he started wiggling around like a worm in an attempt to innocently get away from being attacked. When asked if he ever punched an officer he replied, I never punched or kicked them, even though no one asked if he kicked anyone. He only wiggled like a worm, whilst in the middle of what he claims was flight or fight.
After subduing the young man, the police said whoops, we shouldn't have done that and shuffled off like a benny hill skit without arresting the young man.
🤷 I dunno, I can't tell you which story to believe. I wasn't there and I have no skin in the game. It's up to you to decide for yourself which version sounds more realistic...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mhmahasoso "Omg, like,, how can you even compare a water pipe to an electrical cable, I mean, like, obviously only one of them uses water. Totally yeah..." 🙄
Beyond the short-sightedness of your question, OP is comparing environmental impacts. Pipelines require a much bigger development footprint than the final pipeline will take up, span far greater distances than a canal and carry hazardous materials such as oil, gas, liquid waste, etc across those vast distances where ruptures are much more common.
Try thinking before you be speaking
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidbrisbane7206 The EU is an economic bloc, one might even say a union, a European Union...
The EU centres around Germany through Brussels, a sovereign EU as is being pushed, would rob all of the member states of their independence at the rule of Germany and France.
The same deal as the UK, just with more territory and swapping London for Brussels. An independent Scotland joining the EU would be scarifying independence once again.
What you're suggesting with Scotland continuing to use the GBP would be the same as the UK using the Euro post brexit. It doesn't work that way, you want out, you're out.
You are living in a fairyland David.
You can't compare a hypothetical independent Scotland to countries that have always been independent, nor with countries that continue to be supported by other nations. Scotland as part of a union can't pull it's own weight or manage provision of services. Where do you imagine the money for Scotland to survive as an independent nation will come from? To support an independent military. An independent financial system. An independent services, health, social services, police, roads, etc. An independent Scotland. That's not cheap, Westminster pays for most of that right now and it's bankrupt living on borrowed money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gazzaman28 Mate, the only people arguing and shouting here are the small minority pushing for independence of Scotland. Everyone else, other scots included, are just rolling there eyes.
Political parties across the whole of the Commonwealth, not even just the UK, have mixed membership from across the political spectrum. The Tories have left leaning members too, Labour has right leaning members too, both have centrist members. The same is true of every other party across the UK and Commonwealth, including SNP. Independence doesn't hold them together, 46% of members don't even want independence. SNP might have started as an independence movement but they've turned into essentially the Scottish party which is why they have a continued voter base.
Independence is a minority desire.
Your nonsense about your political affiliation could have been more aptly written as "you're a remoaner upset you lost to brexit so now you're hoping for disruption"
No one cares how you feel about brexit, having a tantrum won't change anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ariloves10 A reasonable mind is to conclude nothing, because an accusation is not evidence and argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy.
That's the entire point of the concept of blind justice. It's why the statue of Themis/Minerva outside every court house in the western world is blind folded. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a catchphrase mate, it's a fundamental cornerstone of justice and logical thought. Indeed, the entire concept of justice rests upon presumption of innocence.
He hasn't committed any crime until a group of his peers consider all the evidence inside the context of law and find him guilty of a charge placed against him.
Your kind of fallacious thinking is precisely why media should not be able to report names or identifying details until after a conviction has been recorded. This isn't an ideological campaign, it isn't a course in gender politics, this is another humans life. This "believe all women" virtue signal nonsense is unhelpful to everyone, including women.
You weren't even paying attention, because ZERO women have accused him of rape. Not a single one. The POLICE have accused him of rape based solely on comparisons to DNA taken from a geological website of a distant relative.
There are serious problems with DNA evidence normally, but this kind of DNA so far removed isn't evidence of anything. They're bringing in 9 women that the police have their fingers crossed will identify him in their 2 decade old rape cases. But that itself is problematic because of the biasing by this kind of reporting and by the police themselves who will be pushing for a result. Also of course the unreliability and impermanence of memory, particularly over such a long time. He of course would have only been a young teen at the time too whilst their rapists were all adult men.
The evidence against him is shakey at best.
Just to consider your argument more practically before you respond. If I and the other commenters in this thread all accused you of rape, would that make you guilty? Would a reasonable person looking in conclude you did it? Would that be fair or just? Do people lie?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Point of fact: The pilot program is NOT funded by taxpayers and is NOT a city initiative. The panic button pilot program is a joint initiative between United Bodegas of America and the panic button manufacturer SaferWatch. It is funded by a $1M grant provided to them by the Bronx Community Foundation. If the pilot program is successful they plan to ask the state for money at THAT point. The money they would ask the state for would come for the money already earmarked as part of the shoplifting crackdown to enhance store security, not new moneies.
There is a parallel pilot program between the city and Evolv Technology for "AI powered" weapons detection scanners. These look like metal detectors and are being deployed at some subway stations. They aren't metal detectors however, they use electromagnetic sensors connected to software (which they call "AI" even though it isn't) which are supposed to detect weapons on a person as they walk through. If they detect a weapon the scanner takes a photo or short video of the persons face, and a close up of the part of their body the weapon is detected. They cost $15M/yr
These were discussed at the same press conference which might be where your confusion is coming from.
The panic buttons are standalone simple GSM devices (cellular) that send a preprogrammed SMS to a list of contact stored in the device. They DO NOT set off an alarm. They are NOT on par with a bank silent alarm system that alert police. These are essential just a phone that sends an SMS to people, including the local police depending, when the button is pressed. That's all they do.
There has already been some violence against store assistants who CALL police in view of thieves, what do you think will happen when it's just a button so there is no evidence of a confrontation so far as someone on the other end of a call for example? Seems like it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured because they pushed the button.
But because it also alerts other United Bodegas of America members in the local area, it also seems inevitable a vigilante mob will eventually result in at least some cases and that appears to be the real reason behind alerting nearby Bodegas.
It's worth bringing up Francisco Valerio from Ridgewood. He owns Franja Wine and Liquors. He and his brother got into a physical altercation with two wouldbe thieves, when Francisco pulled out his legally owned and carried firearm and attempted to pistol whip one of the thieves. Insodoing he "accidentally" shot the thief in the stomach. The long and short of it is that Francisco was arrested and is facing up to 7 years in prison. The wouldbe thieves, who are repeat offenders and had targeted Franciscos business many times prior, are free and only face misdemeanor charges despite their attempted assault on the store owner.
United Bodegas of America were involved in Franciscos case, as he is a member. They attempted to pressure the DA, Melinda Katz to drop the charges and there was strong visual community support for the same. However Ms Katz declined to drop the charges and intends to seek the full 7 year maximum sentence.
The panic buttons are a direct response to the case. It is not legal in NYC for store owners to defend themselves. However, if they mimic the tactics of the shoplifters and have a large group, it's harder to identify all the individuals and who did what. Certainly more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt when it's a mob. And that's why the panic buttons alert nearby United Bodegas of America members.
In the 70s Bodega owners used a similar tactic. They had a party line, when they were robbed they'd pick up the phone which would ring all the other Bodegas and then they could say they were being robbed. The vigilante mob would arrive imminently.
Someone is going to get seriously hurt over this whole thing. The DAs and courts could solve this entire problem tomorrow if they simply did their jobs to the letter of the law. Instead, they are all activists. They pick and choose when they will enforce laws, and against whom. They enable these syndicates, which should make them legally culpable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rygar218 🤦🤦.
My gosh you really aren't too bright are you. There is no contradiction whatsoever. The two statements support and confirm each other.
Holding someone on a bogus charge doesn't mean you're doing so illegally. Indeed, you'll struggle to find a country on earth that hasn't held someone on lawful charges that were bogus.
Hosting them hostage is figurative speech, apparently you don't understand that though.
Everything else in your comment is copy pasted from Wikipedia because you clearly don't actually know about the constitution. If you bother to read the rest of the same Wikipedia article you'll quickly find out that I was correct.
It's funny though because what you posted reaffirms the '74 constitutional reform I mentioned and discusses the lead up to the '93 reforms. 😂 Before you said there wasn't a constitution at all until 2008. 😂😂
What's also funny in the contradiction you made some time ago. You talk about Myint Swe but fail to understand he is the leader of the Tatmadaws political wing Union Solidarity. You talk about the president as the head of state but in the same breath acknowledge that there is a long standing military dictatorship. News flash, you can't have a dictatorship if the dictator isn't in charge. Clearly the political structure in Myanmar is a bit too complex for you to understand.
The Tatmadaw has been talking about a "path to democracy" for decades. The '74 constitution was supposed to provide that. There was a proposal in '89 and the subsequent '93 constitution was also supposed to lead to democracy. None of them have ever delivered. Indeed the entire point of the NLD is to create democracy in Myanmar, it formed from a protest group in 1988.
None of this story is in any way new.
The 2011 reforms edged the 2008 rewrite closer to democracy which lead to an upset at the ballot box in 2015 where NLD won more seats than they were supposed to under the Tatmadaws plan. That they won even more votes in the 2020 election triggered the whole thing.
By Tatmadaw logic if they've already rigged the election in Union Solidarity favour, but NLD win then it can only mean the NLD rigged something too.
You seem to have missed the point of the text you quoted from me. The Tatmadaw do not want democracy,, the Burmese people, and some of the other ethnic groups do. The Tatmadaw will do and say anything to hold on to their dictatorship.
Myanmar is a pretend democracy. The military want the people to believe they have a voice so they settle down and follow orders, but they don't want to give them a genuine voice and they never have had one. Ever.
The Tatmadaw understood if it didn't act in February that the NLD would pass new constitutional reforms that would have stripped the Tatmadaw of it's power and led towards genuine democracy. They didn't want that so they arrested everyone and charged them.
You keep talking about "class" but it's become abundantly clear that you're just looking at Wikipedia and doing web searches on the fly because you actually don't know what you're talking about. The class you're taking is from me, which you are slowly coming to agree with as you search around more and copy and paste information. It's very funny.
The biggest mistake you're making here though is you seem to act as if I somehow support the Tatmadaw despite having made abundantly clear that I do not. My challenge is to media who are misrepresenting what is actually happening, likely because of people like you who wouldn't care or wouldn't understand if they were accurate about what's going on. You are entirely out of your depth mate.
Myanmar is a complex situation with a convoluted political structure that amounts to a military dictatorship. A body who are already in power can't seize power, they already have it. That means no coup d'etat. They arrested their political opponents to stop them from seizing power. In a sense the Tatmadaw prevented a coup d'etat, but no one is happy about that.
P.S. Please find more credible sources of information than Wikipedia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol imagine believing that people virtue signalling actually believe in the things they're saying. Listen, if wealthy democrats believed in the virtue signalling they throw around, they'd be taking their own wealth and investing it directly into helping the disadvantaged. It's all just double speak to get people to vote a certain way.
Look, when you have a political system designed around a two party majority then these kinds of problems are inevitable. Think about it practically. You have two parties campaigning for the same voters as each other because the winner has the majority. The fringe die hard party faithful aren't the people they're campaigning for, it's the majority swing voters. But when you only have 2 parties and they're both going after the same swing voters then you end up with parties that are the same as each other by necessity but just say their stuff in different ways.
That's where this virtue signalling and double speak comes in. If you're a wealthy political candidate and you win you can give yourself, friends, family neighbours and donours tax breaks and shield your position on the top. If your competitor in the only other party win, they can do the same with their friends, family, neighbours and donours, you and yours miss out. That's really what it's all about. Vote for which group of wealthy people will benefit for the term.democrat and republican are really just two sides of the same coin, each putting on a little song and dance to give the illusion of choice. But you don't really have one.
It isn't new, it's been built into the system since independence. You think a poor white kid could grow up to be president if he hadn't made a fortune in the intervening years first? "The american dream" has always been that same kind of virtue signal double speak crap they're doing now. It isn't real and never has been. Wealthy people don't want equality, they wouldn't be wealthy if they did. They want to be exceptional, separate from everyone else, better than other people. They might virtue signal otherwise, but that's why anyone chases wealth or riches over mere financial security.
You want to fix it you need political reforms to make it a multiparty, proportal voting system where there are no major parties, and all parties run campaigns on a level playing field without private donours. Where the vote is spread between more parties, and thus the percentage necessary for a majority is lower so you don't need to compete on all the same swing voters, and political churn can be far more frequent as a result.
But that kind of reform would require mass political engagement and coordination from the public to not vote for incombents or major parties in the next electoon. Instead of voting democrat or republican in November, for example, everyone could vote for independents and in so doing knock the major parties out of existence, and create the very real means for reform.
Incredibly unrealistic to happen however. Unless a newspaper like the NYT got behind it and started pushing the idea for example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mike Lowrey
Mate, there is no such thing as "evil" and you're completely wrong.
The Jewish-Palestinian holy war has been going for ~3,000 years. It's a point both sides use to justify their position. The UK and yankville weren't even countries when it started.
Your reference to 1947 itself was prompted by religion. The resettlement of Jews en masse in the region came about because the Jews of Europe wanted to rule over Zion and the Christian lobbies of the west THINK facilitating that will bring back "Jesus" (Yəhōšū). But the Jews never left the region, never stopped their claim to it and the fighting over their "holy" sites never stopped.
Look to any country raised on religion and there you will find the same. In the west, you will find expansionist or colonial policies always follow religiously devout leaders, or those whose ear is control by a religious lobby. Look through history to every genocide of any people's and there you will find religion. Look throughout history, including very recent history, to every time historical artifacts are purposefully destroyed in violence, there you will find religion.
It is absolutely religion, the ridiculous delusion that storybook characters are real. The absurd notion that their fictional creator deity of a universe as immense as this one, with the estimated 10^25 planets inside it gives a toss about one tribe out of all the tribes of a particular species of animal, out of all the animals on a single insignificant tiny rock in the milky way, a single galaxy in a sea of 10^12 galaxies.
We can look as far back as records and archeological evidence go, and we see religious war all over the world. Fighting over whose made up nonsense is the one true made up nonsense, and utilising it as a tool to justify genocide and expansion. All religious roads lead here.
The only means to peace is secularism. The removal of religion from the equation, so that no individuals beliefs rule over any others. Indeed secularism gave us the birth of the technological revolution. Any country not dedicated to secularism should find no trade nor foreign aid.
It is time we ended the farce of religion and worked together on the real threats we all share, like overpopulation and adaption to a changing climate. They can only be solved by working together rationally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"we're going to come back to you for more money, otherwise [a country you don't care about and have actively sold weapons to their enemies to cause this famine, will be in big trouble, that you won't actually care about anyway"
Fixed that quote for you.
When are those in their fantasy world going to come back down to earth and realise how things actually work?
No one actually cares about human rights in far off countries, if they didn't there wouldn't be human rights violations, ever.
No one actually cares about starving third world nations, if they did no one would ever starve. If humanity actually wanted to, poverty could be solved literally overnight.
These things exist because we want them to exist, because we don't actually care about suffering somewhere else. And if your country is the military force causing it or you actively sold weapons to those militaries, then you actually actively want the suffering of those people.
What's happening in Yemen is genocide. The Saudi coalition want to wipe them off the map. Of course they don't care if they starve, get freaking real.
We watch these kinds of things on the news as entertainment. It makes us feel morally superior by providing opportunities to shake your head and declare to those you talk to, or publicly on social media you're against that suffering, before you do absolutely nothing to help.
Let's stop being surprised when no one or too few are interested in helping.
You want to get action from the developed world? Turn up on their doorstep in the hundreds of thousands or millions, with legitimate, legal, asylum claims. If the choice is between rebuilding your country or housing you in theirs, the choice is consistently clear. They'll rebuild your country because no one wants you in theirs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dear game players and consumers in general, the ONLY reason anyone ever gets into business is to make money. As much as they can. If they weren't in it to make money they'd be registered as a non-profi, games would be something like the open source/MIT model and studios would collapse pretty quickly due to lack of funding. Or they'd stay just a couple friends making games in their spare time while they work a day job somewhere else, and next to no one would play the resulting game.
There's a lot of marketing nonsense that's been spilled into consumerism over the decades, and based on the way consumers talk now it appears many have taken BS as truth. The consumer does not, and never has, come first. A business can be motivated to create wonderful consumer experiences, to listen to the wants of consumers, to try to make consumers special. But the motivation for doing those things is ultimately the desire to acquire money.
The employees are in it for the same motivation. They might really enjoy making games, but they aren't volunteering their time. They're there to make money. $117K per year on average according to glass door.
To pay those kinds of wages, a company needs to, you guessed it, make more money. Whether it's a small independent game studio, or a heavily invested IPO, profit is the goal, it's the bottom line and the driving force. There is no magic world were that isn't the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christosh4187 Not all viruses are transmitted the same. A mask won't prevent HIV because it isn't spread through droplets (cytotoxic) or vapour (aerosol). It's a BBV, meaning you have to contact blood serum to acquire it.
I understand that's not what you meant but I thought it was important to start there and make that clear before I explain the rest.
Not all masks are the same either. Masks work by creating a physical barrier between your respiratory system and the air. The simplest types of masks, from dust masks up are essentially about the size of the holes in the fibre they're made from.
Think of them like a sieve. Anything larger than the holes will be prevented from going through, whilst anything smaller than the holes can pass freely.
Up from that you have chemical filters, such as those on a painters respirator or a gas mask. They use a combination of layers of simple filters, chemical treatments and reactive substances like charcoal to prevent exposure or neutralise the effects of whatever they're designed to combat.
More advanced respirators use solid filters with chemical treatment that provide osmosis like filtration. These usually have the filtration in a belt pack.
And then at the top of the pile there's closed loop respirators that draw air from their own closed, known clean supply.
Where a full airtight seal can't be made with the face, there is a pathway to avoidance of the filtration regardless of the filters quality
When you talk about masks, you're talking about the simple filtration type that act like sieves. Viruses come in different shapes but most importantly sizes. A viruses that's bigger than the holes in the mask fibre will be blocked. One smaller than the holes will pass through unabated.
That's why a dust mask for example is useless against SARS-CoV-2, at a diameter of as small as 50nm and a length as short as 9nm SARS-CoV-2 will pass right through a dust mask as if it wasn't there even for the larger virus particles at 140nm x 12nm the dust mask holds no protection.
Surgical masks can trap the larger particles but the lack of an adequate face seal the whole way around and the small size of some of the virus particles means they're only about 30% effective.
N95 and N99 masks have full facial seals and holes small enough to block 95% and 99% of airborne particles respectively. That's why they're harder to breathe with, because you're forcing air through extremely tiny holes.
The type of respirator being used, in combination with the physical size of virus particles changes how effective a respirator solution is against a particular virus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is extremely rare I will be even slightly interested in a sponsor. It happens maybe twice a year, if that. Ground news was interesting enough to get me to click the link, and honestly, I was all in to buy a vantage subscription until... everything on the landing page was yankville focused.
The Harvard story your covering is more an academia story of international relevance rather than a yankville focused story. Honestly, for the most part, I couldn't care less what's happening in yankville. It's just not an important place. What I want is news about oceania, sopac, sea and europe. In particular I care about news from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, China, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, DRC, Saudi Arabia, UAE & Canada. But the general regions too.
From my understanding of the landing page sales pitch they don't offer news from any of those countries. If I've misunderstood something please correct me. If not, I hope someone from ground news reads this comment and takes my request to heart. I can see amazing potential for the service, but it needs to have relevant news sources.
Also, this line in the ground FAQ seems ominous, particularly because it's overtly awkward.
"Ground is backed by a handful of mission-aligned independent individual investors"
Makes it feel like there's something to hide
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jazzyjazz9872 How ignorant are you? All 5 of the countries you just named have annual fire and flood events.
California and east coast Australia are opposite sides of the same system, which causes cyclic extreme fire seasons every decade, relative to their annual fire season.
East coast Australia from Sydney up to the cape, and west coast Australia from the Kimberly down to perth have a once a five year extreme flood event relative to the annual flooding in those regions.
Canada has a 15 year extreme fire season cycle relative to their annual fire season.
Germany has a more intense flood season relative to their annual flood every 25 years, and a historic flood event every century. What we saw in Germany this year was their century cyclic flood.
France floods annually.
So does China. India, Thailand, South Asia, the South Pacific, the rest of Oceania, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc.
Moreover NONE of those events are linked to climate change. That isn't how climate change works, climate is NOT weather and is not reflected in single extreme events.
A climate system is a physical thing, climate change is the slow physical movement of those systems across the globe. To the upper left at a rate of 1-3m annually to be specific. Along with the trapping of radiation through GHG leading to AGW. AGW related to global average temperature measured from the equator, not specific regions. Whilst the global average increases, many regions have their average temperature dropping. That's how AGW works.
I mean this earnestly, stop talking about subjects you do not understand and spreading misinformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BadDriversOz You understand the concept of a private investigator, right? I mean, if you hire one to follow your spouse around, they aren't just your cousin Rick. Most PIs have no direct connection to the client. That's what makes them PIs. In this case, they're connected to the premier league so, they in fact, are indirectly connected to the club because they're an agent of the governing body.
Just because someone on the telly makes a series of sensationalist statements based in hyperbole, doesn't mean something unterward actually happened. The reality is football clubs are private businesses and can deny service to anyone they like for whatever reason they like so long as it isn't on the grounds of a protected characteristic. It's part of the right of free association.
If Asda saw you walk into the store and they didn't like your clothes, or something you said last week to your mum they could in fact ban you from the store if they were so inclined. And actually if they really wanted to, if your best friend Grant told them you said a naughty word and they didn't like it they too could hire a PI to follow you around and report on you. I mean gosh, I could hire a PI to follow you around it I wanted to, no reason necessary and that would be perfectly legal.
They could record you, make a log of your every move down to the second, transcibe everything you say, whatever. You have no right to privacy in public spaces. The correct course of action is for Linzi to stop being a Newcastle supporter and those upset by her treatment to send a clear message to the club and the league by ceasing attendance to matches, not watching them on TV, no longer purchasing merchandise or club memberships, a general boycott of the whole thing until they apologise, lift the ban and commit to never behaving that way in the future again.
But that won't happen because it's all virtue signalling huff and puff with no follow-through if it means you're slightly inconvenienced, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cutting threw Joes bullshit, it comes down to this. All policy decisions have to be set for the lowest common denominator. So if, as Joe admits there's a whole segment of people who don't deal well with cannabis, who do become less productive, who do become a drain on society, who do have chronic aggression problems as a result, who do have cannabis induced mental health problems, and regardless of what nonsense Joe wants to believe DIE as a result of cannabis use, then the policy has to be set for those people.
If Joe feels it doesn't effect him the same way, great. But we're not setting policy for him. We're setting policy for all the people who do badly with it.
The policy for alcohol is set the same way, as is the policy for literally any other thing. Some people never drive their cars above 30mph and wouldn't be seriously injured if they weren't wearing a seatbelt in such a low speed accident. But policy isn't set for those people, it's set for the people who drive fast and die if they aren't wearing one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xpforevergaming8609 If any users, whether all or only a faction of them, are "donating" money to the project, then they are paying for it. That is, if the developer(s) are supplementing their income through the projec (even if just to cover the costs of the project itself) then the software is paid for. That income stream does not need to come in the form of direct monetary contributions from users. If you monetise the users of the software, be it through ads, default behaviours, or anything else, the software is still paid for and you've just disrespected your users by turning them into the product being sold. There is no material or tangible difference between the business model of Google and Mozilla at this point.
Truly free software would be software no one donates any money towards and it is build entirely off the backs of the developer(s). Where a dev has another income stream from a day job or a different paid product and they spend their free time building the free project. There are certainly some limited examples of this in BSD and Linux, and the veracrypt, however most software claiming to be free simply is not. If they have a business model at all, it isn't a free piece of software.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MelissaR784 No laws have been changed to "give social media sites rights to music without paying royalties".
The laws have remained consistent for decades. When it comes to music specifically, the laws surrounding song writing have remained unchanged for centuries. Plural. Similar for books.
When you write a book, make a movie/tv show, create a song, paint a picture, design software, or any other type of media creation, you need to publish & distribute said media. For the sake of simplicity of explanation lets say you wrote a book, but know the steps a similar regardless of what media or IP you create. So you wrote the next best selling novel, congratulations. But no one can purchase it until it's been published and distributed. There are standardised international rules on how books can be published. For example, they must have an ISBN. To be eligible to gain an ISBN a physical copy of the work in its final published form including all cover art and format must be sent to the ISBN organisation. There's also a fee. There are other rules to but the full list is largely irrelevant to the point being made. If you're interested you can look them up yourself. The point is, publishing and distributing isn't free.
You can self publish, but this can be exceptionally expensive. You can go to a publisher and try to sell them your book but there's no guarantee they'll agree it's the next best seller. Or you can go somewhere in between where you have a middleman do some of the publishing for a small upfront fee and a portion of sales. Amazon offer a service of the latter.
Amazon, as the worlds largest bookstore, is well placed to be part of the retail distribution chain regardless of how you publish. If you want your book on kindle, or audible, or google books, or apple books or whatever, you need to grant them a licence to distribute that work on their platform. If you self published, you might directly grant the licence. If you have a publisher, they'd do it.
The distribution licence grants amazon or whoever, the right to sell licences to your book in a given format, and based on certain terms. Such terms can include a time limit. So if for example Amazon is only granted a licence for 3 years, and you buy a licence on kindle 2 years and 11 months later, you're only going to have access to that book for 30 days unless Amazon can negotiate a licence extension or a new licence.
It's a similar case for music. There are rules, and numhers and submissions and all sorts of stuff. But to answer your question about music on social media, that music makes it on those platforms because it was published by a record label, and the label made a bulk agreement for licencing to the social media for a fixed catalogue. I'm not sure if you realise this but record label contracts are notoriously bad for bands, but good for record companies. The record company keeps most of the profits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CitizenMio No. It is not just "legal semantics". Those "legal semantics" are the exact same rules being used now on digital media. The difference now is that because your copy resides in their property they can more easily track what you're doing, identify violations and terminate licences.
But as I've already mentioned multiple times, it has ALWAYS been the case that publishers could cancel your licence and take your PHYSICAL copy of a book at their discretion should they become aware you violated terms.
For example, if you took your physical retail copy of a book with a consumer licence and tried to rent that book out like a library, and the publisher became aware they could
1. Send a cease and desist
2. Insist you purchase a libraries licence
3. Take your copy from you, including by force if necessary
4. Sue you for lost earnings.
Similar story should you have exhibited the book in public by reading of out loud or filming yourself reading it and publishing that somewhere without the appropriate licence.
The same is true for commercial video, music, sound effects, video games, software and all other types of media. In fact back in the day when the average VHS tape was $15.95AUD my friend owned a video rental store. The going rate for the rental tapes licence at that time was $300 per tape, per year. There were heaps of VHS rental shops back in the day that got raided and shut down because they were trying to use consumer licenced tapes. You have never in your life owned any media as a consumer. That isn't how that works. You purchase a licence and nothing else. It being a physical copy is irrelevant.
Now to be clear, I am not for giving up physical products. I'm a book collector. A physical book collector with a large library of first editions. I own many of those first editions before they're so old their copyrights have expired. But books in my collection still in copyright are absolutely licence only until the copyright expires which impacts their value. That's how this works. It's how it's worked since the invention of the printing press. Just is.
Again. Digital is easier to track and identify violations than physical is, and the distribution licence is slightly different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3_up_moon He's actually not conflating anything. Copyright law gives a copyright holder exclusive domain to licence a copyrighted work. That licence can hold whatever terms it likes, it's a licence and the prerogative, nay duty, of a copyright holder to maintain and enforce their copyright lest they lose it. This is set out internationally under the WIPO Convention (1967) and is domestically more than a century older in the UK and former UK colony countries including yankville. That is to say, NONE of this licencing stuff is new nor is it exclusive to digital products. Physical products such as books, sheet music and board games have always had these terms. Intellectual content on physical media such as music records, movies, software and computer games have likewise also had the same terms. The only difference now is administration of said terms is easier and can be largely automated.
Let me give you a common scenario to help you understand what us happening when you licence a copy of a work.
Your neighbour comes over and wants to borrow your shovel in order to dig a hole. You agree to lend it to him on the conditions that he only uses the shovel to dig the hole and that the hole isn't used to do anything illegal. He takes the shovel away.
If he starts using the shovel to do something you didn't agree to, he has violated your agreement. You can ask for your shovel back. Does that agreement to lend him your shovel have any less weight if you asked him to pay you a nominal fee? Does it have any less weight if he didn't listen to your terms and just blindly said yes to everything you said? You're proposing it does in both instances and that is actually ridiculous.
The ONLY difference between physical and digital in terms of licencing is surveillance. It's the difference between just hearing about whether your neighbour did the right thing or not by word of mouth, and erecting cameras to watch him with the shovel 24/7 to make sure he's using it as agreed.
The problem you seem to be having here is with wrapping your head around the fact that unless you purchase public domain first editions and manuscripts, you have never in your life purchased a book. Yes, you can go down to your local bookstore and pay for a printing of a book. But you didn't purchase the book, you purchased the right to READ the copy of the book under the terms set out by the publisher whom themselves have licenced the rights to publish said book from its author. The money you are paying is only the price of an unlimited ticket to view and read it within the terms. Nothing else.
Ownership of the book is with the copyright holder. That's ultimately what copyright holder means. That person or entity owns the thing, and they are the only one capable of controlling who can and cannot consume it. As unlikely as it is for him to do so, if John Grisham decided tomorrow he didn't want anyone to read his works ever again he would have the right to pull all licences for them. That would include all physical copies of his works which would technically need to be destroyed. If you didn't destroy your copy and he found out he could sue you into bankruptcy. The point isn't whether any author is likely to do so or not, but rather that they hold such a legal right and always have. This right extends not just in whole but in part. They can choose at their discretion to pull licences for specific people or entities. If that entity happens to be Amazon Kindle, then legally Amazon Kindle must destroy their master copy which means all the people who sub-licenced it from kindle, also loose access.
Perhaps a better way of viewing digital stores is like a video rental store or a library. They don't own the work and neither do you no matter how much you pay them. They've just purchased a licence that grants them the right to sublicence the work to you. Imagine a library who purchase a copy of a book and then charge you a fee to come read the book in the library. That's effectively what's happening. They'll continue giving you that access whilst the book is in their catalogue, however if the copyright holder cancels their licence they no longer have the right to display the book (or hold the copy) so you lose access to it as well.
Copyright has existed for centuries specifically to create such a licencing scheme to allow creators of IP to earn money from it whilst maintaining ownership of said work. You want rights you have never had and wouldn't want if you actually understood the topic.
Also worth noting that if you're in a job that creates IP, such as an office job where you create spreadsheets or forms or any other kind of IP you'll read in your employment contract a clause that ultimately means your copyright over those works is instantaneously transfers to the company upon creation of the work. Sometimes that can take the form of talking about producing commissioned work but it means the same thing. This is because without that clause in your employment contract, you would technically own the copyright to those works and be allowed to take them with you or delete them at your will. With the clause you aren't the copyright holder, your employer is so you cannot.
Lastly, did you know that some software, games, music and movies, starting in the 60s started coming out with licences that are not transferable? This technically makes it a violation of copyright law and opens you up to civil penalties if you resell or even gift the work to someone else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have to remember, the parents of these kids are the same generation who got trophies for turning up when they were kids. They're the same generation whom were endlessly told they're right, and great, and special and everything they feel is valid. It should be no surprise to anyone that they act this way as adults.
Now for the scary bit. They're also the generation who are the emergency responders, police, construction workers, engineers, politicians, city officials, teachers, doctors, healthcare workers, economists and magistrates today.
Consider all that's going wrong. The division, the crime, the construction and building integrity problems, the economy, high malpractice rates, etc. Consider whether it might have something to do with this same generation yelling at volunteer umpires that doesn't understand context, nuance or that they might be wrong/their feelings invalid and can't comprehend that they aren't special.
Extrapolate it out and ask yourself where the world might go from here...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kiwi Balls False. A circle is not a sphere nor can be interpreted as one. That is particularly true when you are sitting above the circle. The bible discusses a flat earth.
Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree.
You don't get corners in a sphere, you need a flat surface for corners
Psalm 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
On it's foundations. Because the bible sets out the earth as a flat circle on pillars
Proverbs 8:27
When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep
A circle. Not a sphere
Job 26:10
He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
A circle, not a sphere. In a battle between light and darkness. That's not people who understand the earth rotates around the sun, or indeed even what the sun is.
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
You can't do that unless you think the sky is a flat sheet above a flat earth
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
You can't do that unless you think the world is flat.
Isaiah 48:13
My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.
More talk of foundations and stretching things out. This is discussing a flat surface on pillars.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
Literally discussing placing the earth on pillars
Isaiah 11:12
He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
More talk about corners of the earth and calling to all the people on earth from a single point. That requires a flat earth.
I can seriously keep doing this all night long mate, because there are hundreds of such references to a flat earth on pillars in the Bible, because that's what the jewish tribes who wrote the bible from the middle east thought of the world 6000 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How dare Justin Wellby. How dare he minimise the deaths of Palestinians. How dare he shelter the zionists. How dare he tell us we do not know what we're saying. How dare he.
Article II of the genocide convention defines genocide as a crime under international law binding on all peoples whether they have ratified the convention or not. It is defined in the convention thusly.
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Let's walk through it.
The israel ministry of defence and bibi himself have directly stated it is their intention to "wipe the Palestinians off the map." ... their words. That's intent.
They are murdering civilians, including an entire hospital of people with indisputable video evidence it was them, and screenshots of their original posted press releases celebrating their hitting of the hospital.
They care causing physical and mental harm to Palestinians. Terror in fact.
They have blockaded the Palestinians for years, and systematically subjected them to siege with no food, water or utilities. They have prevented the Palestinians from providing their own utilities. They have prevented the Gazans from leaving. They drive them from their lands, from their religious monuments, from their homes. They shoot at them indiscriminately. They go into their homes and slaughter them.
Israel have open policies intended to limit the number of Palestinian births.
They kidnap children, be it to hold them in detention in israel, or to relocate them with an israeli family.
The actions of israel meet every last criteria of genocide described in article II of the convention AND where to be genocide they only have to meet 2 criteria.
So how dare Justin Wellby. Perhaps instead of closing his eyes and talking about half hearted regret he might stop and think about what he's actually saying. Perhaps he might understand what is actually happening to Palestinians, not just in the Gaza strip but the west bank too. Perhaps he should bother to actually understand the criminal definition of the word , and why we say it. It isn't emotional hyperbole, it is an objective fact. His wilful ignorance is appalling and shameful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is zero chance any part of Google is sold or broken up. It will not happen. Google will get a sjmilar slap on the wrist to Microsoft. They know it, the judge knows it, the DOJ knows it, I know it, and deep down, you know it too despite your wishful thinking.
Chrome being sold off or broken up would just destroy the browser market. There's only two real options if it were sold, either someone buys it from a for profit in which case they'd seek to monetise chromium to make good on their investment which would cripple all other chromium projects, or its sold to a non-profit who would immediately destroy the user experience, and in doing destroy it across all chromium projects claiming "lack of funding". Anyone who can make chrome work for profit without doing either of those things is going to be dojng the same thing Google was doing, and thus you're back in the same monopoly territory. All of those scenarios are worse for consumers, so the judge legally can't order them to happen.
Google has already started its anticonsumer behaviour, but it will ramp up 1000x after the court case is over just like it did with Microsoft. Monopoly is a badge of honour in silicon valley.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, you guys in Yankville thought Trump was your great saviour? He's not. He's just one of the oligarchs who has taken direct action instead of indirection action through a paid servant (politician).
He disagrees with the idea that moving to socialism is the only way to overcome China making the western elites irrelevant. He believes the solution is more of the status quo old guard instead of making changes. That's it, that's the whole thing.
He managed to convince other oligarchs because the status quo old guard means rolling back regulations that will empower them to make much more money and concentrate more power at the expense of the average person.
The surface level policies have changed. But the other stuff, the propaganda, the subservience, the etosion of rights, speech and your constitution, the stuff that really matters, that's still there and going along like a steam train.
For every part of the establishment that gets shown to you, there are multiple new parts being put in its place that sure up power for the oligarchs in Trumps circle.
When the directors of government departments ALL boast about being long time friends before their appointments, you know some shady stuff is going down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol. Brazil, Russia and China are not emerging anything. They're all established powers. BRICS is not trying to be ASEAN, it's trying to create a powerful economic and mili bloc to rival G20, NATO and the EU. The goal is to get rid of petrodollars, to dramatically reduce the international influence of yankville, the UK and the EU with rival systems in parity.
BRICS should bring in major economies that traditionally have not had a seat at G20. Countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. That's exactly what it's trying to do. The only country on your list that makes any sense is Indonesia.
The point of BRICS is to impose alternative influence (control) over countries like those you suggested in the OP.
They're developing alternatives to the IMF, the world bank, swift and reserve currency. They're looking to create visaless travel amongst members, and negotiate a single currency for all member states the same as the EU. They're seeking to have minimum annual investment standards (as a percentage of GDP) in military capacity and joint defence alliances similar to NATO. They are also persuing military interoperability just like AUKUS.
BRICS is in early days still, give it a couple more years to get it's foundations in place and the entire power dynamic of the global is going to shift. I mean if they can get the leaders in OPEC into BRICS we're talking huge impacts on western economies, and reduced standards of living.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm at 2:18 and don't intend to waste anymore time watching this nonsense video. Here's the real answer.
Not all "entry level jobs" are really entry level jobs. There are no skill jobs, things like pushing buttons at McDonald's or in a store. Then there are low skill jobs, like assembling a burger in a McDonald's kitchen, pulling a lever in a factor or selling. Then there are jobs that require a medium or high level of skill, like the majority of jobs today.
Entry level DOES NOT mean a no skill job. Entry level can be a high skill job, such as an entry level software developer. Entry level means the most junior of the employee stack.
When an entry level job is asking for X to Y number of years experience, they 9 times out of 10 DO NOT MEAN IN THAT ROLE OR INDUSTRY. What they mean is, X to Y number of years WORKING. That is, have you been able to successfully maintain a job at McDonald's or pulling a lever in a factory, or whatever, role you've managed to get for X to Y number of years without problems. Can they call up a manager and a supervisor for that role and hear from them that you're a polite, dedicated worker, that followers orders without a fuss and will fit into their workplace culture. Can they talk to someone at your old work they might actually respect, and hear that working with you every day won't be the bane of their existence.
That's what that means. You should have a job at 14. You must have a job by 17 if you want to get work smoothly and without much stress. If you keep that job throughout tertiary training, or upgrade to a better job that you keep during the same, then you have the prerequisite experience they're looking for.
See a medium or high skill employer doesn't want to waste time on you trying to teach you the etiquette and norms that you should have learned from a lower no skills role in your teen years. They want you to come with those things and ready develop the skills actually relevant to the role.
And no, contrary to this video that didn't start in the 1970s or 1980s. It started when low skill roles progressed almost into medium skill roles. Like early doctors, lawyers and master craftsmen. That was several millennia ago. Yes, your grandfather lived in a world with those kinds of restrictions. What changed is the mix of the economy. Where once a large selection of jobs were in the no and low skill category, now many of those roles are outsourced overseas where workers don't have so many demands. That leaves a majority of medium to high skill jobs in the economy that need to be filled, and to get them you first need a no skill job as a teenager.
The rise of the "living wage" for fastfood and other no skill industries poses a direct threat to this system as employers will simply outsource or replace employees with machines. You aren't supposed to still be doing a no skill or low skill job passed 24 at the absolute latest. You certainly aren't supposed to raise a family on one. You're supposed to get some kind of tertiary training to progress into a medium to high skill role. If you haven't, that's a failure of you not the system and you shouldn't put future generations in jeopardy because you didn't do the right thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"if you don't see 'em actually doing the work in black communities, white communities, Asian communities, brown communities, poor communities that where it's needed the most, right, they're just talking. And it's no disrespect, no actual it is, it is disrespect, IF YOU'RE TALKING AND NOT DOING, NO PARTICIPATION I, YOU, WE DON'T REALLY NEED YOU TO TALK"
This is the realest thing I've heard come out of the USA in decades. Not just US media, but out of the mouth of anyone from the USA, period.
Listen to this quote. Take it to heart. Read/listen to it over and over until it's a core part of your being. Then stop talking, and start doing. Volunteer. Put in the work. Put down your phone and PARTICIPATE.
Talk is cheap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marymartin1106 We're on a video by sky news Australia, where "here" is should be obvious.
200 people died in which fire exactly? Or do you mean a particular fire season? 33 people died in the 2019/20 bush fire season, their names where read in parliament at the time. Thousands were left homeless as a result of the 2019/20 bushfire season, many of whom remain that way.
The fires across NSW occurred for many reasons, lack of clearing was one such reason. The lack of clearing was however not a result of "greenies", it was a result of political mismanagement. In 2015, then state treasurer Gladys Berejiklian cut state spending on emergency services, in particular the rural fire brigades across the state in order to try to balance the state budget. In doing that she froze spending on clearing. We then had our regularly scheduled fire season and there was plenty of dry vegetation ripe for fire. It was a financial decision by someone whom would go on to become one of the objectively worst premiers in the state's history, if not the country.
Key point here related to this video, the UK has no vegetation clearing program by the fire department because their regular climate means the risk of fire is usually low. This week the UK suddenly got a small taste of what an aussie summer is like and were completely caught off with their pants down. Thus this and many other fires.
Climate change is manufactured only in the sense that it's caused by the actions of humans. That is; the things we do in our daily lives, including all of the infrastructure that supports using this platform, is causing climate change. But the biggest driver of climate change, as with many of our other big world problems, is overpopulation. The natural extreme limit on human population is 1 billion people globally, we're about to hit 8x that figure.
You're talking about "greenies" but "greenies" aren't the experts calling for action on climate change, indeed most "greenies" are as confused as you are. The experts are the 97% of climatologists, scientists, and the millennia of historical data paired with centuries of first hand data that confirm climate change and it's cause. AGW is not debatable, it's a definitively real physical change to our climate systems causing very real, physical climate shift of which the heatwave Europe is experiencing right now is only a tiny part.
Climate change isn't "about" anything, anymore than the resulting gravitational effects of jumping from a cliff is about something . The response to climate change can be about something but it is a confused cluster f*** where everyone is out for themselves, and it's been that way since 1964. The media understand climate change about as well as joe blogs down the road, that is to say they don't. So we get all this mixed messaging because most people including the media don't understand what's going on and those people whom do understand are out to protect their own interests.
It certainly doesn't help that every man and his dog have started green washing their products as a marketing ploy.
Those countries with coherent plans on climate change are trying to balance all of the things you mentioned. Australia hasn't ever had a coherent plan on climate change and this current government are unlikely to give us one either. Instead we just kind of flip flop between industry led action (aka the do nothing approach) from the LNP and Labor's obsession with an ETS as if raising cost of living were the only solution, because it's the solution that doesn't challenge union jobs and allows our economic drivers to continue ticking over.
And what the Australian Greens want would collapse our economy and destroy our country. We don't actually have any genuine leadership on climate change in Australia and I can't see any forthcoming this decade.
Net zero targets are a scam. Net zero isn't the same as gross zero. Net zero allows emissions to continue to increase or remain the same, so long as you buy carbon credits from another country then on paper you can offset your emissions running you down to zero on paper but of course not in reality. Prime example here is Germany whom are leading the call for net zero, but have increased gross emissions by 50% in the same period they claim to have reduced net emissions by 65%. The truth of the matter that many "greenies" don't want to acknowledge is, that we simply don't have a good way to manufacture most of the stuff, including ironically renewables and EV, without creating substantial emissions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ellengran6814 Literally nothing you said is true, and you're giving yankville credit for things they didn't invent by a long shot. Again you have demonstrated you have no clue what you're talking about.
Modern humans have existed for ~300K years. The first modern human settlement that we've found is at Jebel Irhoud and is dated somewhere between 379 - 254 thousand years ago.
Slavery was invented ~300,000 years ago. That's right, for almost as long as modern humans have existed there has been evidence of slavery.
An empire is the state of expansionism into others territory. It's literally what it means, here's the OED definition;
1 An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
The modern English word slave, comes from the ethnic group the slavs who were considered to be made for slavery by the civilisations across western and northern Africa and the fertile crescent for several thousand years.
Yankville isn't special, their slavery story is that of doing what was normal for the time. The slaves sent to "the new world" were purchased from African slave traders, who had been in business for thousands of years before hand and can be argued still are in business across continental Africa today.
The story of humanity is the same story of all social animals, particularly our primate family. It's a story of expanding and shrinking territory and tribal fighting for those territories, particularly those rich in resources. It was only in 2001 that with the help of western allies, Guinea was able to defend itself against insurgents (mostly from Liberia and Mali) trying to take control of parts of Guinea.
This kind of behaviour is prevalent throughout the middle band of Africa, which only further destabilises nation states and distracts from national growth. Sometimes they're warring tribal factions from inside a countries borders, sometimes they're insurgents from across a border(s), and sometimes both.
One of the boards I'm on is for an NGO working in DRC which provides microloan start up capital and free business training to the people. I can assure you, their lives would be better without the constant domestic tribal fighting over resources and the unstable corrupt government. But we do our bit to help stablise the country and foster local innovation.
So let's stop messing about. You have no clue what you're talking about, just ridiculous ideological rhetoric that has no relation with reality. Particularly in terms of Guinea ffs.
1
-
First and foremost @hallooos7585 I don't remember making the argument that natural resources are a necessity to national prosperity.
Secondly I must point out the folly in your selection of examples. Switzerland is an old world European country with embedded wealth from hundreds of years of close ties to the Catholic church and stemming there from, banking. Perhaps most importantly however is that Switzerland, despite being a federal republic is not one country, but a confederation with varying degrees of economic growth depending on which canton you belong to.
Hong Kong was a Commonwealth settlement for 99 years, it's growth came from shipping. A translation between the manufacturing hubs of China and South Asia. So too in recent years has Hong Kong's economy reduced as China moves exports into mainland speciality cities.
Singapore too owes its prosperity to advantageous location to shipping lanes and exploitation of cheap tourist labour. Singapore has a literal waterway dividing rich from poor.
With all of that said, all 3 of your examples have resources that are being exploited for national growth. Be those resources location, labour, technology or strong partnerships with their territorial neighbours.
The biggest mistake with your argument however is the naive insistence that any country owes it's national growth to one individual, or that a single individual is at all capable of such a feat. That simply is not the case.
What all successful nations; be it your examples or any other, share in common is stability in their political and economic systems. That is, no tribalism, your neighbours aren't trying to steal your land or resources and there aren't semi-regular coup d'etats whenever someone hears something they don't like.
They have strong political systems which separate powers to drive political and economic stability. Corruption exists in all countries, all countries have politicians who aren't looking out for the best interests of their people. And yet they do just fine.
The three biggest economies on the planet, China, Yankville and Japan lack leaders looking out for the people. Despite that they are indeed the biggest economies. Because they're stable. I can invest my business in any of those countries and know that there isn't going to be a random coup d'etat, insurgents aren't going to take over and rule of law means something. That translates into growth.
1
-
1
-
All radiation is not the same. Non-ionising radiation from EMF, such as that appearing in WiFi and cellular broadcast, is produced by every electronic device and motor in your home.
From your fridge and oven, to your tv, electric blankets and fans. Even the lights. Indeed light itself is a form of electromagnetic radiation, and colour merely the perception of different spectrum of such radiation.
All of the electrical wiring from the power plant to the walls of your home emit some EMF radiation, and the amount increases over time as the insulation shielding degrades. This can be to the point that in wall junctions built in the 70s & 80s can sometimes cause hallucinations and feelings of paranoia (interestingly such junctions appearing in bedrooms is a common cause of what people claim are paranormal experiences or alien abductions). Such exposure has no long term consequence other than perhaps convincing the individual something happened which in fact did not.
Wired CAT cabling, switches and computers likewise all produce EMF radiation. What one has to consider in terms of radiation output is that shorter CAT cable runs can result in longer power runs and closer exposure to the switch.
Li-Ion batteries, such as those found in laptops and mobile phones, contain the radioactive rare earth metal lithium as their active metal in the chemical reaction. They emit small amounts of ionising radiation, which is different than the non-ionising radiation given off by EMF.
Terrestrial radio, television, short-wave, CBs, etc all use different spectrum of non-ionising EMF radiation to broadcast. As most people will know, FM radio is a low enough frequency that it can successfully make it into areas, such as through concrete walls, which cellular and low dB WiFi broadcasts cannot.
Non-ionising radiation is the not scary radiation, and is mostly harmless. Certainly it poses no risk to humans in the spectrum and dose given off by any of the components discussed thus far.
Ionising radiation is the type that in high doses can be harmful, but in low dose is equally harmless. As previously discussed very small doses of Ionising radiation are emitted by Li-Ion batteries, but it's also emitted by building materials.
All stone, brick, gypsum and CONCRETE structures give off ionising radiation. Due to small amounts of naturally occurring radioactive elements such as radium, uranium, and thorium these building materials have the potential to produce radon gas which is genuinely poisonous to humans.
The potential for this production increases when you cluster the radioactive elements closer together such as when you twin cycle the concrete to make it denser and thus "printable".
That's what makes @anonymousanomaly9538 comment so ironic. Worried about exposure to a minutè non-harmful radiation, where multiple studies including longitudinal ones, have conclusively demonstrated no risk of harm from cellular and WiFi broadcast.
Yet happy about a structure that while shielding from cellular and WiFi broadcasts, emits low dose ionising radiation and has a greater potential to produce radon gas.
With as much respect as is due, it's actually quite an amusing statement to have made and demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@browniedayal4980 @brownie dayal It's important to understand the context of what is going on here and why it's happening.
First and most importantly this isn't something that just started a couple of months ago. This all started in 2014 with the violent coup. It is essential to understand the nature of the coup to understand why this is happening.
We're talking about organised crime in Ukraine seizing control of the country, originally on their own and towards the end of the coup with the aid of yankville to get it over the line. The coup unseated an elected government and put what is essentially the Ukrainian version of the mafia in charge of the country.
Originally the west viewed the coup as an unimportant regional dispute. The usual suspects sent representatives to try to mediate but it wasn't seen as a big deal. Biden, then VP, was sent on behalf of yankville. Yankville were originally perhaps least interested of all. Then Biden was offered shares the oil & gas companies and suddenly the west cared about and backed the coup.
Importantly that coup changed Ukraine from an eastern sympathetic officially neutral country into a pro western no longer neutral country. Under international law Ukraine is one of a number of buffer countries (almost all former Soviet states) that are supposed to remain officially neutral and it no longer is in violation of peace accords.
The organised crime syndicate who seized control of Ukraine own the biggest oil & gas companies on Ukraine, it's a big part of why the seized the country to give themselves a leg up.
The eastern Donbas region is rich in both oil and gas. Several trillion USD worth of resources untouched under the ground, that's trillion with a T.
Gaining access to the Donbas reserves is the key reason for the coup, to grant themselves mining rights and make a fortune. The reason they're untouched is that there's towns and villages on top of the reserves. People's homes.
It just so happens that 99% of those people are Russian speaking,, ethnically Russian dual citizens of Ukraine and Russia. So what exactly does that mean? Well it means in the Donbas region the main language spoken in everyday life is Russian. That the inhabitants immigrated from Russia, often during the Soviet era (so they've been in Ukraine for several generations now) and the majority of whom still have extensive family networks in Russia. These are people who regularly cross into Russia to buy goods or services, see relatives, go on holiday, even for work sometimes. These are people whose main trade is with Russia.
However it's essential to note that they do not want to be part of Russia or controlled by Russia. They enjoy their autonomy.
These are people who have had their democracy taken away by the mafia who want to steal their land and leave them with nothing. Obviously they aren't happy with that, so they want to be independent.
Kiev, wanting the oil and gas was not down for that so they sent in the military *AGAINST THEIR OWN CITIZENS*. Thousands of civilians in the Donbas region have been killed each year defending their homes, their towns, their livelihoods. That is men, women and CHILDREN. The elderly and the young alike. People who still hold Ukrainian citizenship. They've been shelled endlessly and faced the full force of trench warfare that YouTube won't allow me to explicitly name.
For 8 years they've endured. For 8 years Ukraine has attacked, because without the Donbas the gang in charge don't make the kind of money they wanted to. They need the region for the coup to be worthwhile.
There is personal wealth at stake here. we're talking Biden and Zelenskyy both standing to personally earn billions a year if they can get hold of the Donbas.
So just 7 weeks after Biden took office as president, 7 WEEKS, Zelenskyy made a presidential decree to move 50K Ukrainian soldiers into the region and onto the Russian border. Their intention was to just sweep across the Donbas committing mass murder of their own citizens to gain control of the regions.
Russia responded by matching troop numbers in a defensive posture as a kind of waving a big stick to tell them not to attack the Donbas. That's when Zelenskyy went on his little tour of the EU last year pushing a scare campaign about Russia posing a threat to all of Europe if Ukraine doesn't join NATO.
See if Ukraine joins NATO then Ukraine can attack the Donbas and if Russia retaliates the North Atlantic Treaty that governs NATO requires all NATO members to come to Ukraine's aid even though Ukraine are the aggressors. Luckily NATO didn't buy the scare campaign so when the weather changed at the end of April and a military offensive was no longer viable both sides stood down...
Until this year when Ukraine got in early and sent 100K troops to the region. Again Russia matched and held war games, etc in a sabre rattling exercise to warn Ukraine off.
This whole time the Donbas has still been fighting for independence. The way it's shaken out there are 3 main groups with different ideas, 2 of which have now submitted official requests for nationhood. They've asked Russia for help defending themselves against Ukraine.
All of that is to say, after all of that, 8 years of murdering their own citizens, all those personal gains at stake and the level of corruption on display, what on earth makes you think Ukraine will suddenly back down now?
That is entirely unlikely.
There will be crisis talks across the UN, NATO, the allies and with Russia. Russia will want to define the borders of these new countries which stand a reasonable chance of being accepted internationally despite the push back right now.
But Ukraine, Ukraine will continue it's offensive. Already Zelenskyy has pledged to do just that. This fiction Zelenskyy is pushing about a united Ukraine is bunk. Ukraine is very divided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not sure what you're laughing about, from Wikipedia:
A Novichok agent (Russian: Новичо́к, "newcomer", "novice", "newbie"[1]) is a group of nerve agents, some of which are binary chemical weapons. The agents were developed at the GosNIIOKhT state chemical research institute by the Soviet Union and Russia between 1971 and 1993.[2][3][a][5][6] Some Novichok agents at STP are solids while others are liquids. It is thought that dispersal for the solids is possible by ultrafine powder.[7]
Russian scientists who developed the nerve agents claim they are the deadliest ever made, with some variants possibly five to eight times more potent than VX,[8][9] and others up to ten times more potent than soman.[10] As well as Russia, Novichok agents have been known to be produced in Iran.[11]
In the 21st century, Novichok agents came to public attention after they were used to poison opponents of the Russian government, including the Skripals and two others in Amesbury, UK (2018) and Alexei Navalny (2020), but civil poisonings with this substance have been known since at least 1995.
In November 2019, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is the executive body for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), added the Novichok agents to "list of controlled substances" of the CWC "in one of the first major changes to the treaty since it was agreed in the 1990s" in response to the 2018 poisonings in the UK.[12
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swatichatterjee1513 I said
"Everyone should be working to break down divisions"
However the bulk of the work naturally falls to immigrants because they're the ones who have to assimilate.
There are no sides. Your analogy is not apt. No government is sending random people in other countries invitations to emigrate. We're also not talking about guests, guests are tourists. People who immigrate are permanent, they're housemates.
Here's a better analogy. A random stranger knocks on your front door and asks if they can move in with you. You say no. They throw a hissy fit, cry, plead, beg and refuse to leave. They give you a sob story and you eventually give in and say, ok but will you be a good roommate? They say absolutely, double promises and sign a contract to agree to be a good room mate. Or, sometimes they don't even knock, they just wait until you're asleep then jump through your window and claim they live in your house now.
So they move in and immediately start changing all your stuff. They change the furniture, try to tell you what you can and can't do, be rude to your friends and family, give you no respect then act like they're the victim if you get upset about it. They claim a section of your house as their own and say only people with approved red hats can come in. They start insisting they want to make your house like the house they used to live in, even though you never asked for that, don't want it and it's the reason they left their old house anyway.
Then you have good immigrants. Sticking with the same analogy, they wait until you put your room up for rent. They offer to pay you more than you're asking. They bring additional benefits to you, like skills or contacts. And they work very hard to integrate into your house, taking onboard your language, culture and routines, without any fuss. They're happy to do it.
If you're going to immigrate somewhere, find somewhere with the culture and lifestyle you want to live in, and will be happy accepting. Mingle with the indigenous population, make friends, absorb the culture, assimilate.
Don't make weird little ex-pat cliques and try to make your original country in your new host country. Your immigrating because you want their culture or you don't immigrate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaapliedje Nope. You could have hundreds of laptop models on sale in big box retailers with Debian or OpenMandriva on them and they'd bearly selll any. Even if they were half price, they'd bearly sell.
The year of the linux desktop won't be until Linux becomes a closed source, commercial piece of software that puts "it's for power users" into the background, and replaces that motto with "it's for grandma". When Linux looks as refined as windows, macos or android, is sold by licence, has commercial software people actually want to use (including the software they already use, not FOSS alternatives) and "just works" without the user needing to know literally anything about computers and certainly never needs to touch a CLI.
When it does that, fortune 500s will switch to linux because it's already on their servers and that streamlines the whole thing. When fortune 500s switch, then so will schools because the whole point is to teach kids the systems they'll use at work.
While Linux remains, free, opensource and fragmented, it isn't going anywhere
1
-
I am gen x and I have never in my life watched a bluray. I moved to digital only movies and tv shows when DVDs were still a thing.
Physical media for games, that's important. But only so far as the game itself doesn't rely on a server. Because games should be playable forever.
Books too, physical media is important.
But movies, tv shows, music, etc? Nah. No need for physical media there. There is streaming, there is digital purchasing and there is sailing the seven seas for everything that doesn't fit in the former two. If you don't have plex, or jellyfin or whatever other such system yet you are doing it wrong. Catch up.
If the internet goes down permanently, I can still watch any of the movies, tv shows, home movies or listen to any of the music, audiobooks, etc I have. A collection that would take up a good portion of the liveable area in my house if it were still physical.
InB4 the inevitable chump argument about "ownership". You have NEVER owned any of these things even on physical media. The licencing has ALWAYS been like this and revoking your access even on physical media has always been an option. What changed is the ease of enforcement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jennifer-journal-through-grief A goal. The object toward which an endeavor is directed; an end.
If ones goal is merely to survive without regard to longevity, function or quality of life, then you are correct in your assessment of the amount of food required.
To see OPs fist sized portioning at work, one need only look to the undeveloped world supported by food aid.
If one's goal is to improve longevity and fortify against disease, then one must consume the optimal nutrition in their day which requires 5+ meals including snacks.
If ones goal is to live a moderately healthy lifestyle without the consumption of animal products, one must plan their meals with care and consume 6+ meals a day including snacks.
If one's goal is to build muscle and strength in any kind of significant way, including for competition, athletics/sport, fulfillment of employment tasks, cosmetics, then the consumption of 8+ planned, smaller meals a day is necessary whilst paying attention to macros and micros.
If ones goal is to perform calorie intensive tasks for employment, hobby or sport then one must consume a calorie dense diet. You are correct in that regard. However such a calorie dense diet requires a greater number of meals.
Your body is an organic machine, it requires particular fuel and quantity thereof to run optimally and it's further needs vary depending on use case and goal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They get hold of these girls, including 5 year olds, because BRITISH MEN in power have created a child trafficking system for profjt that is labelled as "state care" and has been in existence as a child trafficking system for at least a century if not longer.
It impacts both young girls and young boys. Dealing with one group of pedos because they're foreign won't fix the problem. The problem is the British elite, comprising British men and British women who are perpetrating this, and have allowed these gangs, who only represent a tiny faction of the industrial scale this stuff happens at, to do their pedo stuff. Itt's actually that simple.
Revolutions rarely occur where you revolt against democracy by force and come out with democracy on the other side, let alone leaders who come from existing parties. That's generally not how revolution works.
But do consider something here. You are saying you cannot "rise up" against pedos because the pedos and their sympathisers in charge will incarcerate you. And that all of your political parties have pedos and pedo sympathisers in them. Really stop and think about the country you live in. The system you live under. The people you call leaders. Remember all those young girls, the court reports, the tens of thousands of boys and girls before them who have testified against the elites and those who we know ended up in shallow graves. Think about them and keep them in mind every time you see ANY currently sitting member of parliament, from ANY party. They're all involved. British, harming British.
Your outrage comes from decency, not from patriotism. Patriotism, given the fact, would clearly be to support and cover up for the pedos. You live on a larger version of Epstein Island.
You talk about "making an example" of people and other acts that I can't repeat in the comments, but you do so after you quiver and shake that the same people might put you in gaol. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is confusing about any of this? They're all on the same page. All they have to do is write back 5 things they did last week in dot point form. It's a 2 minute email. Surely you know 5 things you did at work last week if you're actually working. If not, you won't be receiving a cheque for not working soon either.
Some departments have obvious secrecy surrounding the tasks their employees are undertaking. Intelligence agencies, the fbi, the doj for example. These agencies are simply saying don't respond to the email from OPM, we'll send you the same email internally and you will complete the same exercise in a secured manner.
Why are you pretending like there is anything confusing or complicated going on here? If your department/role doesn't have a secrecy component, you complete the OPM request. If it does, your department will make the same request internally instead. If you don't respond, or you can't come up with 5 things you did that produced value, your job won't exist anymore.
Edit: No, it's not what you did by day. It's 5 dot points of what you did last week it could be
• fox and friends
• radio
• made phone calls
• spoke to legal
• attended morning meetings
That's it. That's all they're being asked to do. If they can do it, their job is fine. If they can't, they won't have a job. I've been doing the same thing in my orgs for years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The government have literally told you in the soundbytes played what has happened. But CH4 after being told exactly what's happened want to beat up the issue and behave as if they don't know.
To be clear. The government have said.
1. The "experts" like the joker at 12:28 told them the same garbage he's saying here. That you can "manage" RAK (you can't).
2. Based on the advice of people like the joker at 12:28 the government issued a report that they did not KNOW of any structures facing imminent failure.
3. Over the summer there was a failure in a building that someone like the joker at 12:28 had said was safe.
4. The government have now disregarded the advice that RAK can be managed and that these buildings are safe. They are seeking to identify all of the RAK affected sites and through a mixture of solutions remove RAK from the equation altogether.
The BRE report claims RAK poses a problem but that it can be managed and most buildings would be safe. Of course that was a labour government so they just listened to their trade union buddies and did nothing.
The advice from jokers like 12:28 in 2018 was the same. "No rush guys". But the government sent a notice and told schools they should consider a voluntary survey. Cas Evans details that in her interview. The government clearly hoped schools would manage the problem independently. That didn't occur so they had to step in and force a survey in 2022. Something that might have come earlier had there not been a gap in kids in classrooms from 2020 to 2022.
Cas Evans literally says that the way the survey was conducted, involved first the identification of RAK, then testing to establish its condition. She talks about it at 7:35
Then this absolute muppet from 12:12 claims he thinks the survey was just identifying RAK when he was in the studio and heard directly that it was not.
He also states that the issue is that reinforcements can corrode inside the RAK without any visible signs. It therefore seems obvious that no amount of testing is going to accurately show you the condition inside the RAK across the entirety of a building. That's before we even get into cost management.
I really do hope the moron builder loses his government contract. The sections of buildings with RAK just need to be condemned. Rebuild those sections where cost effective, otherwise knock the building down and start again, or find an alternative building.
The interview at the beginning with the autistic kids mum was absurd. Schools aren't childcare centres to drop your parental responsibility onto.
Then there's Bridget. Oh my. The problem was identified in 2002 under Labour. They had 8 years to come up with a long term plan and did not. Now she just wants to play the blame game without providing any substance. She has no plan on RAK. None. When CH4 finally challenged her on that, she started platforming on about breakfast clubs for kids and more apprenticeships and again without any substance. Just more pretty words. No pushback from Christian. Just "thanks very much, we'll end with you platforming". lol. More underhandedness from the labour campaign machine that is CH4..
Here's the truth. Labour voted for most of the things they're blaming the government for today. They have no plans. No long term policies. No idea. The truth is it doesn't matter whether you vote Tory or Labour, it'll just be more of the same nonsense either way. I think Sanak is genuinely trying to do a good job, and he just happens to be surrounded by incompetence. Requiring students to learn math is the biggest positive change in UK education for the last 50 years. It is insane it wasn't already a thing as it is in every other OECD nation. But even more mind blowing that it's getting pushback.
I think you could count on a single hand the number of competent people in the entirety of Westminster, both reps and lords, across all parties. If you want to solve this situation, you have to vote out BOTH major parties. BOTH.
1
-
1
-
Don't be naive. Facebook benefits by inviting hand picked large companies and charities onto the table and it isn't about "sharing responsibility". Let's look at who is in the association
Both major ride sharing vendors, Uber and Lyft. The most popular, market leading music streaming service Spotify who own more than 1/3 of the market. Farfetch, the most popular online retailer in hollywood (ie. where all the influencers shop). eBay and it's South American counterpart MercadoLibre, between them holding more than 80% of the auction market in the Americas. Booking holdings who run Booking.com, Priceline.com, Agoda.com, Kayak.com, Cheapflights, Rentalcars.com, Momondo, and OpenTable which is very important to have on board. Women's World Bank, Mercy Corps and Kiva, all of which are financial based non-profit 501(c) organisations, involved in the transaction &/or lending of money to the most vulnerable. Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe and PayU which between them hold more than 90% of payment processing globally. Vodafone and iliad, two of the largest mobile telephony providers on the planet. Coinbase, Anchorage, BisonTrails & XAPO, huge names in the crypto world that add legitimacy to the whole project and Thrival Capital, Rabbit Capital, Union Square Ventures, Creative Destruction Lab, & Andreessen Horowitz who between them represent the majority investment in the tech industry.
These companies weren't by accident. They allow for utter blanket marketing. Want to ride share? "Why not use Libra to pay?" Want to listen to music? "Why not use Libra to pay?" Want to buy something in an online auction? "Why not use Libra to pay?" Want to pay in store using your existing Visa or Mastercard, or accept payments using Paypal or Stripe? "Did you know it's way more secure for you using Libra?" Want to travel for business, rent a car and book a holiday? "Why not use Libra to pay and keep your money safe by using Libra on your trip?" Vulnerable person getting a microloan from the 3 gigantic non-profits? "Did you know we only transfer in Libra now?". Need investment in your new tech start-up? "Sure, we'll give you the capital, btw you have to accept Libra". Want the latest new smartphone? "Did you know you can say $X / month on your plan if you pay in Libra?"
But it's more than just that, having these other organisations on board gives this plan legitimacy. The 4 crypto exchanges give it legitimacy to the crypto world, the 5 traditional payment processors give it regulatory legitimacy to government. The 5 investment houses give it legitimacy to the investment community.
This is a disaster waiting to happen and should unequivocally not be allowed to proceed (but it will be).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-yu8ds2fu2s Have you not been listening? You don't know what Russia have been saying to Ukraine for the last 8 years? Or what they've been saying to NATO for the last 20? You haven't been paying attention throughout this whole debacle? I think you have and you know the answer to your own question, on the off chance you're genuinely asking I'm not sure why you suddenly chose my comment to find out what's been going on.
It is a well documented fact that since the violent coup 8 years ago, Ukrainian military have been murdering their own civilians living in the Donbas at the direct order of the president over oil and gas deposits under their towns and villages. Ordinary men, women and children, young and old, murdered by the thousands each year. There's coverage of it on every major news agency on earth over the last 8 years. These are poor, rural farmers and industrial workers wanting to live a simple peaceful life and they're being attacked for it.
Russia has been telling Ukraine to stop attacking them for the entire 8 years. There's been plenty of sabre rattling from Russia to try to get Ukraine to stop. It's why two of the groups in the region decided to declare independence as the nations Donetsk and Luhansk. These regions just want to live peacefully and independent. They don't want to be absorbed by Russia, they just want to live the life they always have and not get attacked by the Ukrainian military.
In 2021 under presidential decree, Ukraine moved 50K troops and supporting artillery into the Donbas. Russia moved an identical number to their border to stop a massacre. You'll remember this period because Zelenskyy went on his little campaign around the EU trying to incite fear of Russia invading the EU if Ukraine isn't admitted into NATO. That was unsuccessful, everyone saw through the lie and when the seasons changed at the end of April the troops were forced to stand down.
This year, by presidential decree Ukraine doubled their soldiers into the Donbas to more than 100K. Russia again moved an identical number to their border to stop a massacre. That's what started all the propaganda this year.
So first and foremost Russia have been saying that Ukraine should withdrawal their troops from the Donbas and leave these civilians alone to live peacefully, whether that's recognising the declared nations of Donetsk and Luhansk or just leaving them be as still part of Ukraine. Don't murder your own civilians is a pretty reasonable request.
For the last 20+ years Russia has been telling NATO to back off, that the encroachment further east is viewed as a threat to Russia's national security and sovereignty. Any nation faced with a large historically adversarial force on their border would feel the same. Yankville certainly felt the same during the Cuban missile crisis and they're still punishing at Cuba almost 60 years later.
Since 2014 as Ukraine has been seeking NATO membership, Russia has become more vocal about these concerns. No country wants an expansionist rival to have military assets in their backyard. How would the EU feel if Norway joined a defensive pact with China, and China put military bases and missiles in Norway? How would yankville feel if the same occurred with Canada?
It's an objective threat, but more importantly from a legal perspective it meets the legal threshold for a provocation under the UNSC directives. NATO know that and they know having a NATO member state on the border with Russia would be a recipe for another great European war with NATO on the side as the aggressor. That's why there has never been any real case for, or desire from within NATO to add Ukraine as a member state.
What Russia have said to NATO is simple. You tell us you don't want to add Ukraine as a member, please put that sentiment in writing as part of a formal commitment to peace. Biden refused.
Maintaining the agreed buffer zone is a pretty reasonable request. Russia has been asking over and over, Biden keeps refusing.
Russia has said, if you won't commit to not adding Ukraine we'll have to install a new government in Ukraine who don't want to join NATO.
In principle and legality this invasion from Russia on Ukraine is no different than when yankville & ISAF invaded Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc in recent history and half of south America & Africa throughout the 20th century.
Everything Russia have done is reasonable. Everything they have done has followed international law.
The invasion of Ukraine ends today if Ukraine agrees to stop attacking civilians in the Donbas, and NATO formally commits to not allowing Ukraine to become a member.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok. Here are the facts.
Both men and women have biological windows for children. Womens eggs start degrading from birth. Risk of birth defect is 3.75% at age 25 and increases 3.25% EACH YEAR after the age of 25. Similarly for men, sperm production starts to become increasingly defective with age, with increased risk of birth defect starting from 30 in men, and increasing with every year.
If children aren't something you want (which is a perfectly valid position we need more people to take) then those numbers do not matter. However, what does matrer is that all the "good" partners are snapped up early so after 30 you're left with the dreggs.
There is also the separate biological peak, sometimes called a prime, in which muscle and bone density increase which happens between the ages of 31 and 45 in men and 25 to 36 in women. Almost as if in response to the window for child bearing.
The divorce rate is DROPPING and has been dropping since 1974. At 29 this woman has never lived in a time where divorce was doing anything but dropping. The current divorce rate in yankville is 11%. That's ~1:10 marriages. It is expected to drop BELOW 10% by 2026. Those are incredibly good odds.
The "half of all marriages end in divorce" comes from 1971 where divorce in yankville peaked at 48% during the "summer of free love". That ended in 1974 and divorce has been dropping ever since. Cheating on your spouse might end in divorce, gosh, who would have thought.
No one is going to believe someone who is holding back tears trying to claim they are happy.
If you tell me in earlier videos you are struggling financially, to the point of having 3 jobs, you have no basis to claim you are doing fine alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This isn't a passing comment by a government representative without consequences. This is an official designation.
It is illegal to supply, fund, or even talk neutrally about any person or organisation on the list.
The political wing of Hamas is the government in Gaza. This designation means it is now illegal for any UK business to supply goods or raw materials to Gaza or to a third party where they know or it is likely the third party will supply Gaza.
That's everyday items, food, consumer goods, solar panels, infrastructure, manufacturing equipment, and raw materials like coal, iron ore, gold, etc.
But perhaps more importantly because of this designation it is illegal for UK media outlets to cover the Gaza side of the conflict. They can't have people in Gaza, they can't cover peaceful protests, and when Israel bombs Gaza killing hundreds of civilians including children all Israel has to do is claim without evidence that they were all Hamas and UK media can't report it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ano3758 For whatever reason I wasn't notified of your reply until today.
The point is Columbia is in serious debt and lacks the revenue to stay solvent. That brings the direct threat of hyperinflation.
So you don't want the government to spend anymore, if anything you want them to cut spending and put more money from revenues into replaying national debts
I'm going to be honest, I don't know or care enough about Columbian politics to be able to comment with any substance on the potential for corruption. Maybe there's political corruption, maybe there's not.
Either way even if corruption is related, it's separate to the budget situation Columbia finds itself in. The reality is, how you got to this position isn't relevant to how you get out of it.
It doesn't matter who is in power, they're going to need to implement austerity measures; that is increase tax revenues and reduce spending, in order to fix things.
If you don't like your president, vote them out at the next election. Spreading a virus during a pandemic, setting fire to buses and being violent won't help. But be clear, austerity is a necessity for Columbia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well let it not be said that @benghazi4216 didn't have a flair for the dramatic when attempting to sell a false narrative.
So many emotive words, such colourful attempts to discredit reality and what of the childish name calling. A little too theatrical for my taste though I must confess. And yet they remain the tools of a propagandist. When backed into a corner and faced with hard facts, what else is there but to attempt to discredit ones pursuer. Shame you did such a mediocre and obvious job of it.
Ukraine has always been aligned with Russia. It's people want to be aligned with Russia, they simply wish to be autonomous from it. That's the entire point of civil conflict in Ukraine, a western backed coup that took control from the people and attempts to villainize them internationally.
A government that is elected democratically is the will of the people. That's how democracies function, to suggest otherwise is whilst of passing amusement ultimately a lie. Where they corrupt? Sure. Is that cause to subvert democracy and install a western puppet government who are literally an organised crime syndicate and merrily set the military upon average citizens? Men, women and children who want nothing more than to have their democratic wishes respected?
This isn't partisan, it's objective fact. Fact this very video you're commenting on demonstrates. This couple want nothing to do with Kiev. They are telling you outright that the coup has destroyed their lives. They are telling you outright that the military might stop them mourning their relatives graves. They're telling you directly that the military shell the area, a civilian area, with artillery.
It's interesting in your attempt to discredit the truth, that you make the baseless (and quite cliché for internet discussions) accusation of being a shill. As of the only possible way one could ever wish to find the truth and bring it to the attention of others is if they are in the employ of a foreign power. What menial nonsense will you express next? No doubt something in line with Godwin's law.
I find you to be a boorish, juvenile troll incapable of rational, independent thought. I shall not engage with you further. Good day to you
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It isn't the platform per se and they aren't explicitly protecting scammers. Under the law a defamation lawsuit can apply to any person or entity who aide in the distribution of harmful statements about another person or entity.
So, let's say Jim put up a video claiming that you had done something you had not, for the sake of argument lets say he claimed you stole a packet of crisps but you didn't and can prove you didn't.
And let's say because of that video you lose your job and because of losing your job you lose your house. That's a valid defamation case. Now, if you go to YouTube and say Jim is defaming me and they do nothing they are now part of the defamation and can be sued to the same extent as Jim could.
That's how the law works, everyone including YouTube have to play inside of it. At the end of the day YouTube is a company, a division of Google. They're not here to help people, they're not here for charity or to make some kind of political statement. YouTube exists to make YouTube money, it's what you should expect from any platform or person really.
So with that in mind Google aren't interested in exposing themselves legally to hundreds of thousands of defamation lawsuits, some of which may succeed but all of which would be costly. So they have a policy on defamation claims, and really all of their policies are designed this way, to protect themselves. That policy results in any video claiming to defame being pulled down. YouTube are not in the business of providing legal counsel nor are they a court. They just want to protect themselves from being sued. Only a court can decide whether something is or isn't defamation and there have definitely been cases that seemed on their face not to be defaming but the court has decided they are.
Scammers like Raj understand this about the law and YouTubes policies, and exploit the system with false claims of defamation in order to protect their scam. Don't hate on the platform, if they didn't protect themselves we wouldn't have Jim's videos at all. Instead the only real way to fight this kind of thing is by knowing and understanding the law and using it in retaliation.
If Jim gets the name of the complainant he can sue them for defamation by lodging a false defamation report, and if successful YouTube would be forced to reinstate the video. That's how this stuff works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can you point to a pure capitalist economy in the OECD? What about the world more generally? I certainty can't. The reality is the overwhelming majority of the modern world isn't a pure anything economy, they're mixed economies. Yes, even yankville. A mixed economy allows flexibility, a customised pick'n'mix economy. All of the OECD has some degree of socialism in their economy. Again, even yankville. Indeed that's precisely what bailouts are. Bailouts don't feature in capitalism, at all.
Every economic system in existence, regardless of the ideals it professes, rests on the exploitation and suffering of the many. That's how communism works, it's how socialism works, it's how feudalism works, it's how tribal economics works and yes you are right it too is how capitalism works.
Humans are not genuinely altruistic. Instead, at all times humans seek the best situation for themselves. Communism didn't go the way it did in every country that ever tried it by accident, it's human nature. Every communist and socialist revolution didn't end up a dictatorship by accident. They ended this way because when the rubber meets the road human nature is to seek the most benefit, highest social status and greatest power over a situation as possible.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but no system looks after everyone equally, nor will such a system develop. This idea of utopianism is Dostoyevsky's crystal palace, it isn't real and is ludicrous in its notion.
This is truly why capitalism is the best system we currently have. It acknowledges that fact but builds in systems to allow fluid movement between those at the top and those below them (called economic mobility). It means everyone in a given economy hypothetically has a chance to rise to the top of said economy should they make the right choices and put in enough effort. Obviously reality provides additional hurdles and variables, however for the vast majority of people in a given economy they in fact do have a chance at economic mobility regardless of where they start in life.
Poverty in rich economies has decreased significantly. It's done so by outsourcing that poverty elsewhere. Economic mobility scales, not just to domestic economics but to the global economy between nation states as well. By this mechanism, a country which starts off poor can develop into a leading economy and one which starts rich can become poor, or any degree in between for either. Indeed capitalism could very well indeed carry on forever if not for the physical restraints placed upon us.
This is where things go wrong for capitalism, and for us as a species. The problem is NOT or economic system. Our problem, as with all things, is population scale. There are too many of us.
This means out of necessity by the end of this century we will be eventually left with no choice but to invent a brand new economic system that can handle large scale depopulation and population stability. If we fail to, it's an end of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@perolagrande It's very amusing when a nitwit comes along and makes such obviously false statements in an attempt to push a certain position. Everything you have stated is factually incorrect, I have no confused anything.
The UK DEBT is £2.2Tn. That's £2,223,000,000,000 (or 64% of GDP for 2022 by IMF figures).
The budget DEFICIT has gone from £50M in 2000 to now £498M in 2022 (more or less £500M). The latest "mini budget" drops the deficit to £470M by the end of the decade, but relies on successive governments over that period maintaining the same budget which does nothing to solve the structural problems that have caused the deficit. Deficit remains incredibly high under this plan.
These numbers come from UK government sources (ONS). They're the official figures for the UK. I'm sorry mate but the UK is insolvent (bankrupt) and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
The tax rates from 1 April 23 are
Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0%
Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20%
Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate over £150,000 45%
Those rates and thresholds are exceptionally low, particularly compared with comparable markets. They are not at all at their highest in 70 years, that's complete fiction. They've only reduced for 20 years straight. Graph out the tax rates and brackets over that period and you'll watch as tax receipts from average income citizens fall to now dire levels.
To get fix income tax revenues, the basic income tax rate needs to increase to ~36%, and the higher rate income bracket increase to ~45% with the additional bracket at 51%. That is where treasury modelling puts tax rates that work.
For the country to no longer be bankrupt the AVERAGE UK citizen needs to be in a dual income family to have essentially ANY disposable income. That's reality. That's what's coming eventually, because eventually (very soon, within the next two terms) a government is going to have no choice but to shred services or raise taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edix1673 The fact that you can not tell the difference between an individual's intent and their ability to achieve that intent, is your downfall.
Work on your basic reading comprehension skills. There was never a debate, because there never was an argument on your part to answer. Just a jester yipping away with nonsense and refusing to acknowledge objective reality. I find your words childlike and borish.
For one final time. A voter can preference a party blindly based on whom the party leader is at the time of voting. However, that is not paramount to voting for a PM because only party members vote on leaders and only MPs vote on whom should be PM. A preference for a party is no guarantee that whomever the leader at the time of voting is, will ever be made PM even though the party forms government. Party leadership can be changed at any time at the sole discretion of party members, and there is no rule stating a prime minister must be a party leader.
The majority of voters, vote for their local member and not blindly for a party. That some people do not understand the system is irrelevant. Preferences are counted and respected for local members only. There is no mechanism in the system for voters to decide a PM, and thus as their will is never taken into account there is nothing to "respect" from the people in terms of who is PM.
A prime minister is not the head of state, that's the King. A prime minister is not the head of the government, that's the party leader whom as we've established does not necessarily have to be PM, and even where they inhabit the same person they remain separate roles.
A prime minister is only the representative of the house, or another way of describing the role is they are the representative of the representatives. It is therefore only fitting that solely the house vote on whom represents them. They are responsible for appointing ministers to portfolios, communicating to press, representing government abroad and form the figure head for the civil service.
There is a separate role of Minister of the Union, which whilst traditionally embodied by a PM can be appointed to any member of the house. That role is to liaise with first ministers across the union and ensure government acts on behalf of the entire union not just any one member.
Before you make an even bigger fool for yourself, do look up the PM role.
Ministers sworn into portfolios control those portfolios and the PM has little to no say beyond appointment. You likewise do not vote for whom has which portfolio.
What you're doing is making a series of logical fallacies then patting yourself on the back for having done so. Your argument was lost before it even began.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If course there's fewer children being born. China, like all developed nations has drastically increased the average level of education, it's given women rights, allowed women to have careers and choices, created a thriving middle-class with disposable income, provided a wealth of activities, entertainment and lifestyle options and allowed the mind controllers behind social media in the door.
Nationalism will only get you so far on natural growth if you create well off, educated, well entertained women flush with rights. The better conditions are for women, the fewer are interested in babies, and the more men that are too afraid to approach them in the first place. That in turn leads to a rise in violent crimes.
Couple that with the one child policy designed to create a cultural change towards more sustainable natural growth and that's where China are. Exactly where they planned to be.
Not sure why DW is putting a weird, negative slant on it. With the size of China's surplus population they don't have the same consequences for an aging population as other developed nations do
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gottfried Lieber If you are still engaging in the world, by definition you are not isolationist... It doesn't matter where you live if you retain the ability and will to engage with your peers, let alone an international community, you aren't isolationist.
From a nationalist perspective, which is what this discussion is actually about isolationism means the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Now, I'm pretty sure it's passed your bedtime kid. Go on now, let the adults talk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand that yankvillains have trouble with this concept, but your country isn't the world. That world isn't upside down, just yankville.
No one is going to help you, not after how you treat the rest of the world with so much contempt, and certainly not when it's a thing you created yourselves and have the full power to fix.
The problem with Congress is the voters. Fanboys voting blindly for a party without regard to the individual candidate or their platform. How then can either party ever vote for the others bills, it would mean they'd lose their voter base. You can never have a Congress that work together until the voters sort themselves out and learn how to vote like rational adults.
Given the state of the yankville education system over the last 26 years, the drive towards narcissism, youth worship, and the aging population, it seems unlikely there are any large pockets of able bodied people left whom know how to act like adults throughout yankville. It therefore might be awhile before voters sort themselves out.
So I'll give you a hint. You're not supposed to care, at all which party a candidate belongs to. You're supposed to evaluate all candidates, including those from third parties and independents on their individual merits, then select the most competent of the bunch even if you don't necessarily agree with absolutely every policy they have.
If everyone does that the major parties will very quickly wake up and start acting together if they aren't immediately replaced by other parties more willing to do so.
That's how you fix your country. You stop being fanboys for major political parties cementing corruption and greed. The power is in your hands, it always has been. Fix it, don't fix it, I don't really care. But don't exclaim things are upside down with such ignorant surprise. You made it this way, and it remains so long as you will it so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi @TheAlexashton
It appears you believe that bills are legislated based on a single majority vote in the house and that a minority opposition therefore has no power. This is not at all how the Westminster system functions and indeed minority oppositions still play a vital role in the creation of a bill.
At the second reading of the bill in the lower house there is a vote and as all governments rule by holding the majority of the house this vote usually makes it through. However that is not where the process ends, not by a long shot.
It moves on to committee after passing the second reading where both government and opposition have equal representation, and both sides can make amendments to the bill. The cabinet office describes it like this;
"Committee stage
This is a line-by-line consideration of the detail of the bill. In the Commons this process may be carried out by a specially convened committee of MPs (a Public Bill Committee) that reflects the strength of the parties in the House as a whole. Alternatively committee stage may be taken in the chamber (in which case it is called Committee of the Whole House). In the Lords the committee stage will take place in the chamber or a committee room in the Palace of Westminster; either way any peer can participate.
A Public Bill Committee in the Commons can take oral and written evidence on the bill. In either House the committee will decide whether each clause of the bill should remain in it, and will consider any amendments tabled by the government or other members.
The amendments tabled may propose changes to the existing provisions of the bill or may involve adding wholly new material. However, there are limits to what can be added to a particular bill, as the amendments must be sufficiently close to its subject matter when introduced.
Government amendments to bills (in committee or at other stages: see below) may be changes to make sure the bill works as intended, may give effect to new policy or may be concessionary amendments to ease the handling of the bill. Amendments in the last category will respond to points made at an earlier stage or will have been tabled to avoid a government defeat at the stage in question. Unless the amendments are purely technical in their effect, they will need the agreement of PBL Committee before they can be tabled, and substantial changes in policy will need policy clearance too."
Opposition can amend a bill in committee to such a point even the government no longer wish to proceed. Furthermore, at the third reading of the bill the opposition do indeed have the ability to block a bill even in minority.
Bills likewise must pass between the houses and peers sympathetic to the position of the opposition can squash a bill. Finally the bill must be presented to the crown and his majesty may send a bill back for further amendment before giving royal ascent.
Under the Westminster system both sides of the house have meaningful input and control over a bill. It prevents a government coming in and utterly destroying a country. Oppositions are a check and balance.
The Rwanda bill as it stands needs amendment. It's a very British, soft take on the Australian model that won't work as well. The reason the Australian model works is because it's so harsh and done without regard to their humanity. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Like that time 9 Sri Lankan men had their claims rejected on a technicality and were sent back. Australian officials knew those men were going to be executed, so they sent a team to document it and their execution became part of an ad campaign to stop people trying to come to Australia.
Human rights orgs went nuts for decades over the Australian model, but it worked. Illegal immigration fell dramatically. The boats stopped. Babies stopped dying at sea in their way to Australia. The model works. It works because you crush hope in economic migrants not only by denying entry but by showing them their lives will be significantly worse if they try.
The Rwanda policy needs to follow suit. It needs to get tougher. Remove the chance of Rwanda and just make it a policy of all chanel intercepts. Deploy the navy into the chanel and sink the boats, send all occupants to Rwanda.
It takes a little time for the message to filter through, for their hope to be crushed, a few years; but the boats will stop. Labor need to facilitate that by backing the policy. Australian Labor backed the policy in Australia, it had full by-partisan support. Only the greens opposed it in Australia. Labor should support it in the UK.
1
-
@lovetrainsme7970 You don't seem to quite understand the Rwanda policy.
You're looking at short term cost and deciding higher long term cost and dissolved borders is somehow better.
I think we can both agree that Rwanda is an undesirable destination. That's the entire point of selecting it. The human rights violations and fact it isn't a signatory to the UDHR are all positive points that led to it's selection.
If you're an economic migrant looking to go to the UK, and instead you end up in a significantly worse situation in Rwanda, you're going to tell your friends and family back home whom will think twice about trying to make the journey.
It's a deterrent, do you understand what that means? Perhaps more importantly, if you're in an Albanian gang trafficking women and children for forced prostitution and you end up in freaking Rwanda... you're going to take your operations elsewhere because the economic incentives of the UK dried up.
In return the UK agrees to provide some frankly exceptionally low foreign economic aid to Rwanda to help build their infrastructure and to take a number of genuine, vulnerable refugees (remember refugee is a legal status, it's not an asylum seeker) fulfilling the UKs commitment under the UDHR and '51 refugee convention.
Honestly, your argument is pretty empty headed. If the cost is the same as current, but over time it decreases arrivals so to does it decrease people sent to Rwanda and the associated cost. In a decade you've gotten annual cost down to a 3rd of current expenditure verse not using a third party destination and having costs RISE over the next decade. I mean you do understand that you have to think about the future as well right, not just the present?
The tory plan is a watered down version of the Australian model which absolutely and demonstrably worked in Australia, and has worked in other countries whom have copied it in the 2 decades since.
There is no 1:1 swap. There is Rwanda taking and processing economic migrants, and there is the UK taking a discretionary number of refugees in return. The discretion is wholly the UKs under the agreement. The UK could take 1000 refugees a year, or it could take zero. The number can change each year. It's all up to the UK.
A refugee is not an asylum seeker. A refugee is someone whom claimed asylum, had their claim processed and was found to meet the international criteria. They're not economic migrants, they're highly vulnerable people. The kinds of people the asylum system was set up to help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lovetrainsme7970 Holy f*** are you really this low IQ and poor at reading comprehension? From the home office website
"National statistics announcement
Immigration statistics, year ending September 2022
Quarterly and annual statistics relating to those: coming to the UK, extending their stay, gaining citizenship, applying for asylum, and being detained or removed, as well as immigration for work, study and family reasons, including new visa routes where these are operational.
From:
Home Office
Published
8 November 2021
National Statistics
Release date:
24 November 2022 9:30am (confirmed)
These statistics will be released on 24 November 2022 9:30am"
The reporting period is from September 2021 to September 2022. It hasn't been released yet. It won't be released until November 24th like I have explained twice previous to your last comment 🤦
You are ranting like a crazy person parroting partisan lines you've heard from people much more intelligent than you, and whom I guarantee would agree with me that you're doing them a great disservice.
Gtfo of here, you're an embarrassment to yourself and anyone having the misfortune of association with you. Your total ignorance to anything being discussed here relieves you of the right to an opinion thereto. Goodbye.
Edit: It's also worth noting there have been 90K asylum claims in the UK so far this year. That's a preliminary number, ie. it's an rough running total put out by the government quarterly but confirmed numbers aren't released until November 24. The 12K you cite is not boat arrivals, that too is a preliminary number and relates to the number of applications granted leave. Even the preliminary numbers for 2021/22 tell as similar story to 2022/21. The overwhelming majority, MORE THAN 2/3 of those making irregular boarder crossings are doing so illegally as economic migrants. Sending those people to Rwanda makes sense, it will stop them coming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hizzlemobizzle The problem is this.
The EU is pissed about Brexit. Germany want a larger share of global vaccine sales.
So they made a big noise about the tiny risk of blood clots from AstraZeneca's vaccine, said nothing about the blood clotting from their own Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and blew up global confidence in the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine.
So now APRA is being weird about a tiny risk factor because of all the media coverage, despite there being a higher risk factor of blood clots from the oral contraceptive and the MMR vaccine bundle, and a significant statically higher risk of getting into a car accident on your way to getting the vaccine than a blood clot from it.
So now, APRA have restricted AstraZeneca to only people over 60 and second doses. AstraZeneca is the only vaccine currently produced onshore in Australia, so we're now stuck waiting on supplies of Pfizer to come from Germany which is slow. We're expecting just 600K doses of Pfizer next week and that's to do us a month.
Meanwhile the general population still aren't allowed to get vaccinated yet, they're still holding it back to people somewhere between 40 and over, and 60 and over depending on which state you're in.
Antivax isn't much of a problem. There was some vaccine hesitancy however because we've gone the last 8 months with essentially no cases in the country so people didn't see the rush until Melbourne had an outbreak a few weeks ago, and now Sydney. That's lit a fire under people to get vaccinated, but again we don't have the vaccine to put in people's arms due to the restriction of AstraZeneca to only over 60s which is ridiculous.
P.S 70% is very unlikely to trigger herd immunity, we're talking more like 85-90%
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@あかり-f6p Sure, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be upset with him, or that you shouldn't have your voice heard. You of course have a right to have your grievances heard.
What I'm saying is, the method being used only causes more problems for everyone especially if as you're saying the PPE being used in hospitals is inadequate.
There's lots of ways to protest without having to physically gather. A multi industry strike for example is a form of protest that will get noticed. If suddenly half the country stops running, even for an hour, that's going to be taken seriously. And it can be done safely without gathering because everyone involved is simply staying home for the duration of the protest.
Likewise, protests can be done in the form of civil disobedience. For example, organised well done graffiti murals in high traffic places will get noticed. There's no need to gather, you only need one or two people.
Maybe people put their dirty washing in the street as a protest. A statement to say they're "airing their dirty laundry". It gets noticed. No one gathers.
You can have everyone who supports your cause do something from inside their house that will get noticed. Maybe that's clapping at the doorway, maybe it's putting a candle in the window, maybe it's shouting/chanting or making noise by some means, maybe it's something else. That creates disruption and will get noticed if there's enough people involved. But no one is gathering, everyone's in their own homes.
A letter drive can be effective. If they have to deal with tens of thousands of additional physical letters that's going to get noticed.
The limits are your own imaginations. The point however is to find a way that doesn't result in more people dying and more lives getting ruined.
When engaging in a protest however, one also has to be realistic. There is always the potential that your demands simply won't be met. Maybe he's just stubborn and refuses to go. Maybe there aren't enough protesters to sway the pressure. Whatever it is, if your demands aren't being met you just have to wait for the next election which surely isn't that long away when you really think about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadikkedude No mate. I'm not claiming anything new. No one is glossing over anything. You can't get to the technology of the 20th century with tribalism. A return to tribalism is what the USA is currently experiencing and it won't live out the rest of this century.
Getting rid of tribalism does not rid us of nationalism. Nationalism still is prone to war, thus the UN exists as a counter to nationalism
I can see you really want to pretend white people are bad and if only they hadn't gone to Africa it would be different. But that simply is not true, and the evidence does not support your belief. All you keep doing is showing your ignorance and your dedication to a faulty ideology.
It is a fact that the enlightenment rid us of tribalism, and with that came an explosion of societal and technological advancements.
When Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet, the thing that is enabling us to have this very conversation, he did so with the spirit of cooperation in mind, not for just his tribe, bis people, but to interconnect people. That is, if we still had tribalism we'd never have the internet.
Tribalism is Africa's greatest problem, and if you'd spent any time there, or worked with people in the region, you'd understand that as a literal truth. Tribes that fight over dominance and ownership of resources, instead of nations coming together as one people. I have worked with DRC for many years now and I know this to be true first hand.
We can, and should help those who have no interest in tribalism but those stuck in such a mindset are lost to themselves until they're ready to find a better way
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Talking about hypersonic weapons without mentioning the J series devices from China such as the J-31 and J-37 is ludicrous.
It is against international law to put weapons, weapons platforms or military personnel carriers into space. Doing so wouldn't just be a matter for the UN and the hague, it would give a green light to others to do the same.
To not confirm or deny something is very different than to simply deny a thing. The first is a maybe, the second is an absolute no. Given it's size, and it's open secret nature it very likely is a test platform. The classification likely comes from the additional things that are being tested on the platform beyond those talked about publicly. We're talking propulsion systems, tiles, materials, manufacturing techniques, chemistry, imagery, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest problem with crypto is the same problem Beanz had. They're a token with no intrinsic or independent value being traded as a substitute for real currency. Worse still without an agreed centralised system for determining such independent value, it is subject to the product based laws of capitalism, supply and demand. In other words it's an unregulated commodity.
That makes all of them susceptible to, speculation, massive value fluctuations (inflation and deflation) and market manipulation. There is little sense in paying for goods and services with a commodity token whose value could rise or fall significantly within moments of the transaction. If I pay 1 Monaro for a thing, and the value of said Monaro is X when I pay it and 400% greater by the end of the day I have made a poor trade. If I'm a vendor accepting 1 Monaro for a thing and the value of said Monaro is X at the time of the trade, but drops by 400% I have made a bad trade, worse still I have lost goods with value.
Perhaps more importantly unlike a currency which holds it's own value of X1=X1, no cryptocurrency can say the same. It's value is determined not by self but by that of it's exchange for real currency. No one is thinking of cryptocurrency in terms of 1 for 1 of a cryptocoin and abandoning it's fiat currency value to trade the crypto coin exclusively on the basis of it's 1 for 1 self value 100% of the time. Instead it's like a tourist using foreign currency, always comparing what it's value is against your given fiat. The latter is exclusively the way it is used.
As stated a token. Extra steps, you lose money on and are charged a fee for, merely to obfuscate your involvement in a transaction. As there are no immediate real world consequences to your bank (or your government for that matter) knowing your transaction history, and such things are highly regulated anyway, for 99.9% of people it's a highly flawed solution without a problem.
The only people who actually care enough about hiding their involvement in transactions to go to this much trouble are those people;
• Involved in criminal enterprise
• Suffering a serious mental illness resulting in intense paranoia
• Edgelords
• Seeking to manipulate the market in some way for their own financial gain.
The truth is cryptocurrency will never catch on as a payment system until it ceases to be merely an extra step for real money. That won't happen until it's centralised by a government body (AKA digital currency).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This idea of "big archaeology" is very silly. There's no conspiracy, it isn't unreasonable to suggest you need evidence of a thing before you suggest it happened. Indeed, it's highly unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
With that said, I and many others in mainstream science do privately believe there has to be more, there has to be older civilians. 300K years of modern humans, that is people who think just like we do now, and they're just wondering around aimlessly for 285K of those years? It seems unreasonable logically. But, we have no evidence otherwise, it's evidence we have to follow because that's how you discover truth, and escape bias. It's the fundamental core of the scientific method.
So whilst we can not hold official positions without evidence, we can speculate privately. Indeed that's how places like Gobekli Tepe get discovered. Yes, science pushes back against new ideas. Not because we don't want new ideas, not because of some conspiracy, not because we don't want to be wrong. Entirely for the opposite reason. True ideas, ideas backed by solid evidence stand up to scrutiny. Peer review is an ongoing (as in forever) attempt by all of your peers to prove you wrong. Only truth shines through that process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@royboy565 Yeah no. The King is the head of state in practice. The "democracy" in the UK is a sham created to dispel french style revolution from the monarchy. The UK is not a real democracy, nor has it ever been one. It is a sovereign monarchy ruled by one family.
The crown retains the power to create laws out of nothing, and to repeal existing ones without oversight of any kind. Not a single bill from parliament can become law without royal ascent.
The process in summary is parliament making a suggestion to the crown on something being a law. No one becomes prime minister without the crown. The King decides if he wishes to invite a party leader to form a government or not.
The King also retains the right to appoint his own PM of his own selection without any election taking place. The King is the ONLY person whom can dismiss a sitting PM and in fact is the ONLY person whom can dissolve parliament. Literally everything in UK politics resolves around the crown.
The second house, the house of lords is an oversight house made up of the Kings family and friends. No bill even makes it to the King without their approval and you can be sure they discuss it in private with the King. In this way the King can direct policy without being seen to. The house of lords can direct the commons to change a bill, amend it, scrap it or to create legislation that they haven't yet considered. It isn't democracy, the UK has never been that and can't be whilst it remains a monarchy. There isn't even a constitution in the UK. No, a collection of parliament legislation taken together, any part of which can be changed or repealed at will is not effectively a constitution. That's a bad joke.
Everything I've just said is confirmed in black and white on the UK parliament website. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read the official account which confirms what I've said is fact.
As for voting, no you do not vote for a party. You don't vote for PMs either. People trying to do so is why the quality of politicians has declined and corruption increased. One votes SOLELY for their local member irrespective of party based on the merits of their individual platform. That is how the Westminster system is designed to work, and how it works in practice whether you want to participate correctly or not. Because the house of commons is merely a house where commoners can have their representatives make suggestions to the crown.
Welcome to reality, you don't have even a fraction of the power or rights you imagine you do. The crown is sovereign, that means there is legally no difference between the King and Britain. They're the same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leosath6644 wtf is a "covid camp"? Lmao. No mate, that's not a thing.
There's hotel quarantine, there's home isolation and there's the howard springs quarantine facility for high risk international travellers entering Australia.
You've either heard something someone else has made up or you're making it up on the spot.
No one has attacked anyone over SARS-COV-2 in Australia. Australians have these things called "common sense" and cooperative community spirit. We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, more than 90% of adults. People want to be vaccinated, there's so much demand for vaccination, even now, that it's difficult to find somewhere with an open appointment that isn't several weeks into the future.
People like the lockdowns that have been used, they've been popular. Indeed if anything politicians have gotten grief over not locking down fast enough, particularly in NSW where the state government has tried to bury their head in the sand the whole pandemic.
The premier of WA is the most beloved premier in the country because he's refused to open the WA border before his state is ready and before everyone gets SARS-COV-2 under control.
We like mask mandates. Yes they're uncomfortable and yes we're looking forward to a day when none of this stuff is necessary anymore but in the mean time we embrace the restrictions because we know the point of them is to keep us and others healthy. We know these measures work, we've seen them work for 2 years and we know that harsh restrictions are only short lived unless you live in Melbourne.
The typical lockdown in Queensland where I live, has lasted 3 days. Everyone who has to attend an external work location in order to work (ie. They can't physically work remote) has been allowed to throughout lockdowns and again they only last 3 days...
Schools closed for a total of 28 days in Queensland. Despite that so many parents and kids enjoyed the experience that distance education registrations rose by 50%.
And you can't go a day without seeing at least one family who decided to use SARS-COV-2 as an excuse to pack up and tour the country in their 4wd. I mean about 50% of the workforce work remotely now, so you're no longer stuck in one place and high speed internet is everywhere.
Life has been good in Australia, and we've managed to keep it good whilst battling SARS-COV-2 effectively. No one gets attacked. There's no "camps" or any other ridiculousness like that. We remain the 4th most free country in the world on the freedom index where for comparison yankville ranks 19th.
Come back to earth mate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow. What a bunch of self indulgent tosh from Laura Trevelyan. Based on her logic it's ok if British taxpayers (many of whom were the descendants of slaves of all colours) cover the debt she feels she has. Her justification, that British taxpayers already covered one debt to her family, so why not another. This is in fact a call to indebted slavery.
If Ms Trevelyan feels so strongly about this instead of calling for taxpayers to cover the bill, she should have this conversation inside her own family and they should cover their own perceived debt. She says her family received the equivalent of £3.5M, that's the number they should pay back if they feel so much guilt. They should work to pay it back and hand that to their descendants to do the same. They should give up their privileged in society and become amongst the poorest working class and enshrine that into her family's position.
She doesn't want that though. She wants to virtue signal whilst keeping what she has, as does her cousin.
I'm not sure how David Lassiter believes opening up a house, even if we took away the fee charged; "gives back" in any way. He's virtue signalling hard because he clearly has no intention of any action whatsoever. He's banking on the government of the day saying no.
They're reopening old wounds that are irrelevant to today, at a time when the country is already on it's knees and falling over. They're sowing further division in the process at a time when the country desperately needs unity and solidarity.
Where do we draw the line on slavery? Do the slavs, the literal root of the word slave and still villainised by the UK, get to seek apologies and reparations? Does the UK get to seek them from Italy? Do the descendants of convicts in Australia, yankville and Canada get to seek the same? How about the descendants of prisoners whom had to do hard labour without pay?
Should asylum seekers from Africa and the middle east have a genealogy done as part of their application and be forced to pay reparations as a condition of entry if they're the descendants of slavers?
Whilst all true, I'm obviously being facetious with my hyperbolé. The point is, this argument of reparations, apologies, etc could apply to many people across society. Life is competition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Daniel-gs9eh To be clear, the UK government was by far the highest investor in the Oxford University/AstraZeneca development, however they were not even close to the only investors.
To be considered for a contract at all a country had to invest during the development phase. Every single country with a contract for the AstraZenica vaccine invested in the research, with the minimum requirement being £150M.
Every contract signed came with a signing fee to support production costs.
Every country with a licence to produce the vaccine, which includes Australia, India and 3 EU countries, had to pay additional licencing fees to produce the vaccine locally.
No vaccine production facilities are up to full production capacity yet, regardless of whether they're AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, Sputnik V or otherwise. None of them. They're all under delivering because that's how manufacturing works.
There's an initial lead time involved where production is running at lower capacity to iron out any kinks, get staff up to speed and ensure QC issues are resolved. That takes time.
We'll start to see the first facilities hit full production capacity around the end of April, and they'll all be there by mid June.
The UK have a priority contract because that's how it was negotiated, and for no other reason. The EU have a low priority contract because they negotiated for the lowest possible price over speed.
The EU has stockpiles of vaccine that hasn't been distributed yet. But they're blaming the slow rollout on vaccine manufacturers instead of where it really sits, with them.
You have a group of highly incompetent leaders who haven't managed the pandemic very well at all, are in an election year and are scrambling to try and cover up their incompetence and bandaid the situation to win re-election.
1
-
1
-
The most important part of this report is at 5:53
Methane doesn't get talked about nearly as much as it needs to. The biggest domestic source of methane by far is rotting vegetation. That's all the fruit and vegetable waste be it from surplus supply in the market, at manufacturing or in the home, it's produce that doesn't fit the look consumers expect and the stuff you throw out because you didn't eat the whole meal or it spoiled in the fridge. It's also all the garden clippings, waste from making wood and paper products, slashing of rotation crop grown to recover the soil in "sustainable farming" methods, etc.
Indeed even all of the methane in the meat industry (which is factually less than from rotting vegetation despite what vegans want to pretend) ultimately comes from vegetation.
25x more potent as a green house has but gets almost no coverage.
Meanwhile it's all moot until the real cause of climate change, global population scale, is addressed. Whilst the global population is still growing (let alone not declining as it needs to) then there isn't much of a point to these other climate change measures. The climate will continue to change until we get global population down to at least it's natural theoretical maximum of 1 billion people, if not to it's real world naturally occurring maximum of 500 million.
This, the most essential part of tackling climate change never gets any coverage whatsoever. We need to start having the conversation urgently. We need to start controlling population and breeding rights everywhere. The math is simple, we need to convince 7:8 young people to never have babies.
1
-
1
-
I wonder if, when Richard Wolff hires a contractor to do work on his house, a plumber, a cabinet maker to give his wife a new kitchen, an electrician, a painter, a roofer, whatever it is, if he gets the contracts all around in a group and asks them to vote on the work to be completed on his home. Maybe they want to just do the work he wants, or maybe they think he should have a whole new bathroom instead of a new kitchen. I wonder if he gives them an equal vote.
If he doesn't, then he's all talk and doesn't really believe what he's saying
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's sorry he got caught. When he's released he'll go straight back to it but intends to not "get so carried away" which he attributes to getting caught. So my take aways from this video are
1. Whether you are on apple or android you are vulnerable. Yes, this video focuses on Apple but he talks about going after flagships agnostic of OS. The vulnerabilities discussed exist on both OSes, and all points below are OS agnostic
2. Having the pin code to unlock the phone is sufficient to access banking and other financial apps
3. It is possible to turn off lost or stolen device location.
4. Thieves are recording people putting their pin codes into their phones. Yes they like it when you just give them the code but it isn't necessary.
5. Apparently IMEI locks do not work on these devices or the thieves were otherwise unimpeded by the IMEI lock.
6. They have a profiled victim. The video SAYS young males with flagship phones. But it also gives us a visual clue on the kinds of young males being selected. I didn't see any large, imposing athletes for example, did you? They're targeting nerds and geeks. This makes sense. These are people most likely to be financially responsible with savings, financial investments (particularly crypto) and most likely to use all of the technological conveniences available to them. They're also more likely to be socially inept so easily give away information they shouldn't without question because they're seeking approval from peers and failing that, easily intimidated.
It seems some common sense measures we've been talking about since the early 90s might fight against this crime. Treat your phone the way you would treat your PC.
• Don't hand your phone to other people. They have a mouth if they need to communicate a phone number or username.
• Always use a fingerprint to unlock your phone in public. Never a pin. Set a strong pin code that is not a guessable number related to you such as a birthday.
• Do NOT use face ID. Ever. Don't even have it set up
• Only use banking apps that respect your security. You should need to input your online banking password every time you want to access the app. No, biometrics aren't a replacement.
• Store passwords in a secure password manager. No, not the one integrated into your phone. No, not the notes app. A proper secure password manager, this will probably cost a monthly or annual fee. Use a strong master password with your password manager that must be entered every time to access passwords.
• Use autofill on your password manager instead of copying passwords.
• Set a daily transfer limit inside your online banking to limit potential losses if a thief does gain access to your bank account.
• Don't store your crypto wallet on your phone. You don't need that with you all the time. You're just asking to be robbed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All sounds good, but it's still free linux at the end of the day. I'll be interested when it becomes closedMandriva and costs $300/licence with a focus on making it "just work" for someone who doesn't know how to use a computer and works with all the commercial (read useful) software I want to use.
The kind of software the mainstream want to use isn't free. It can't be free, because making a polished, visually appealing, functional, "just works" OS for the mainstream lowest common denominator is expensive and time consuming. But more importantly when you give your software away there's no external incentive to push hard and fast to the next big innovation.
If openMandriva came out with a closed source, paid third version that wasn't linux (at least in the sense that Android and MacOS aren't linux anymore), could natively run Adobe CC, the full onprem MedicalDirectoe suite, the desktop version of Microsoft 365, the full onprem SAP suite (particularly accounting and business objects), Blender, Avid Media Creator, etc, with driver support for enterprise hardware, easy software deployment, easy for my IT teams to lock down and role based tracking of user actions, mission critical stability and a strong, responsive customer support line, then I'd give it a go and if I liked it, I'd discuss transitioning my orgs to it with my IT teams. That's only something like 15K machines worldwide but that's a decent chunk of change in Mandrivas pockets from licencing and I have friends. Something that is a solid windows alternative. If it could also replace redhat on my servers that would be great.
Linux needs to commercialise.
Also, there are plenty of non-woke orgs in the world. Most just don't become political. We just don't notice them because they aren't saying anything, they have no active, public facing stance. LadyBirds mistake was having an active stance that they aren't going to become political. That's why they were targeted. They knew that, it was marketing. Just like this email from Mr Rosenkränzer is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are there people allowed in from other countries at all? This is not virus suppression.
No planes should be flying between countries not in the green belt, unless they're repatriation flights. Nowhere in western Europe is part of the green belt.
We need sanctions and tarriffs on every country not playing ball. Failing to suppress the virus and thus prolonging the pandemic for the entire world, should be met with total and utter economic destruction.
Europe, Brazil, USA, India, South Africa, put your people inside their houses and do not let them out until you have zero daily cases. Not 1000, not 500, not 10. Zero daily cases. If you get a new case after that, put the people in the area of that case back in their houses there and keep them there until there are no more cases.
If your daily cases ever moves from zero a portion of the population should be restricted.
Your borders should be hard closed, with physical police presence to prevent entry and exit.
That is how virus suppression works, if you refuse to do it the world should punish you harshly until you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A few notes.
The reason many of these seem like they're written by a 13 year old, are because they were. Many other replies are bots. Indeed two of the profiles you highlighted were bot accounts operated by the same individual who wrote the original post.
It should be noted that there's only really 2 types of people actively engaging on twitter (as with all social media platforms). Those who are trying to self you something, and social outcasts.
If you self describe as belonging to red pills, alphas, woke movement, one of the political "wings" or some kind of ideology you are in the latter group. I understand that's going to annoy lots of people, but truth can sometimes be a hard pill to swallow. Perhaps learn some social skills and you won't need to hang out on platforms designed to manipulate your emotions and sell you things you don't need.
There are far too many people, particularly in the under 30 population segment who simply don't possess adequate social skills.
People are not their immutable traits. Women are not a collective. Trying to say that people with a particular immutable trait, be it gender, sex, race, ability, or otherwise is the same behaviour you're criticising these tweets for.
People are individuals. Individuals don't agree. One individual does not speak for all people who share a particular trait. Some individuals are independent, some are not. Some individuals are intelligent, most are not. And believe it or not, for some individuals the shitty lines in these tweets will work on them, even though for most it won't. Their tactic is volume, ask enough people anything and eventually you'll get someone who says yes. It's like a letterbox drop.
Individuals take different strategies to mating dependent on their individual circumstances. Those circumstances include level of physical attractiveness, mental/emotional capacity, personality type and social intelligence. But they also include external factors like social environment, available opportunities to meet new eligible potential mates, cultural attitudes, etc
Clearly the strategies deployed in a small town with a few hundred people will be vastly different than those deployed in a city the size of Tokyo. Likewise the strategies taken online are going to be different than those in person.
The workplace is where a significant number of couples meet. This is particularly true for people who work long hours &/or perform shift work. When not the workplace, people tend to meet their long-term spouses in educational environments, hobby groups, or engaging in neutral activities such as in retail outlets, grocery stories or libraries. Combined these places account for the majority of environments where couples meet.
There isn't anything creepy in and of itself finding a partner in any of these environments. Persisting with unwanted attention however is another matter, but that's independent of the environment in which it occurs.
Overall I found this video to be more creepy than the tweets it's criticising. The amount of mansplaining of strawman arguments was insane.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These rallies do nothing for Palestine. Türkiye already supports Palestine at a government level, this really is held by the President himself. It doesn't achieve anything.
This is really simple. You need Washington to stop pouring money into Tel Aviv and Israel to suddenly find itself isolated and blockaded for it to stop before it planned. To achieve that you need the world's wealthy to call for it. You need the UK to tell yankville to knock it off and to do so firmly. You need need business leaders, lobbyists to start making their campaign donations in Washington determinant on cutting off funding and support to Israel. It requires unified sanctions and trade embargos on Israel. It requires the gulf states to show their solidarity by turning off the oil tap to the world until Israel stops.
Instead we get a staged political rally by a guy who already votes to stop israel but does little more.
This ground invasion won't last long, a few days. Then the slaughter will be so high that there is no one left to murder. So, in a few days Egypt, Türkiye, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi, they'll all pat themselves on the back and say, look, we stopped them. But they won't have, they just finished what they wanted to do. It's a farce and a joke.
It's easy to stand up and say, I support Palestine from inside the safety of your own country. To vote for peace in a non-binding assembly. But without risk, without action to back it up, these are just empty platitudes. That's the biggest lesson Palestinians show take away from this event, even their brothers in surrounding countries would not put their neck out to save them. It's shameful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yet again, another tone deaf activist report from CH4 that fails entirely to come to terms with reality.
8:48 "Is there any other country in Europe, or indeed in the US who does this kind of thing?"
Completely and utterly avoids the question. Because the answer to the question is, yes, every single OECD country facing irregular border crossings at scale does this. Every single one
In yankville they turn up the heat on hot days and make it colder on cold days. Migrants in the US can go days without food. They can be actually, genuinely tortured. They can be beaten, denied clothing, separated from everyone they know and broken physically and mentally. Cate knows that, she just doesn't want to say because it would invalidate all the things she's claiming.
5:45 "These are not prisoners, they haven't been charged with a crime".
It is a crime to cross a border without permission, with the sole exception those whom meet the critera under the refugees convention. Crossing a border because you're poor and don't want to be anymore is a crime. Period.
The reason this is called administrative detention, and they are not formally charged with a crime, is that in charging them with a crime they gain access to rights, trials, appeals and all manner of nonsense they otherwise would not have access to. By calling it administrative detention all of that is avoided. The goal is to deter further attempts through trauma and then deport.
6:28 "People's mental health deteriorates"
I'm not sure cate understands that causing their mental health to deteriorate is entirely the point. It's the exact purpose of detention. To cause those suspected of being illegal economic immigrants trauma then send them back to wherever they started, and have them tell all their friends. The entire point is to stop illegal economic immigration. Being poor isn't a protected trait under the refugees convention.Period.
4:42 "They are second class citizens"
Someone needs to explain to Viktor that they are not citizens at all. They don't even have leave to stay. They are immigrants who have crossed a border irregularly and are not expected to meet the asylums criteria. They have very few rights.
Listen, I understand people like cate think they're doing a good, humane, moral thing. But in reality this is just an extension of colonalism. It isn't the weak that are crossing irregularly from undeveloped and developing countries. It isn't their dumbest. It isn't their worst off. It's the opposite, all of their best, strongest, smartest. The EXACT people those undeveloped and developing countries need in order ro develop their economies and life everyone out of poverty. Actually the humane thing to do is to keep illegal economic migrants out, so they're forced to develop their own countries and reach their full potential. Not become a slave to the colonial powers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sighfly2928 Crikey so many pseudonyms talking nonsense tonight. Yes, police absolutely lock people under the influence in a cell until they sleep it off and do 5 minute checks. They do that hundreds if not thousands of times a day across the UK alone. But it happens millions of times a day across the world.
Hospitals do not have facilities for drunk & intoxicated persons. They literally take them to police or ask police to come collect them. It's a defined part of their job under legislation, and that kind of legislation exists in every western country on earth.
Police are first aid trained and have explicit training on dealing with intoxicated persons. They have clearly defined protocols and procedures.
Yes, welfare searches are extremely common for people under the influence. Again happens in every police force in a western country. In many such circumstances police have to check that you don't have anything on you that may harm you or someone else. They're looking for drugs, sharp objects, bits of string, that kind of thing. The reason they change clothes is for your own safety.
People under the influence of certain drugs can rapidly turn to self harm. Things like shoe laces, belts, metal buttons, knitted clothing, etc all pose a risk to safety. Those custody shorts are specially designed to keep you from having yourself. The same thing happens to people when they're sectioned, only with less dignity or care.
The reason they leave her without a blanket for 90 minutes is again for her own health. The station is heated. Drugs like ice make people feel cold when really their body is hot. This can cause permanent brain damage,coma and death if the intoxicated individual makes themselves too hot. Thus standard procedure in medical settings to avoid things like blankets for 1-2 hours of observation where you are unsure what the substance taken is.
Yes, I guess all of this stuff might be confronting to a lay person with know real understanding of what's going on. But with 18 years in medicine I can assure you they didn't do anything wrong to that woman. Perhaps at most were too lazy to give her a top, but there may have been circumstances involved we're not aware of. Such as a shortage of tops returned from the linen service, or another protocol they were following similar to the blanket. Otherwise everything seemed above board.
This whole video is a beat up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nick-kb6jd lol. crikey you must not even understand what ad hom means, because it's yet another word you're using wrong. There was absolutely none present.
Both inflation can be a global problem; and trying to directly compare outcomes from two very different nations, with two very different markets and situations can also been a non-sequitur, particularly when you fail to account for those differences in your comparison. There's no contradiction, they're not mutually exclusive. That you don't realise that and want to pretend otherwise is yet another demonstration you don't understand this topic.
It's not that I don't think you understand economics, it's that you have repeatedly and endlessly demonstrated you don't. Yet again you draw a non-sequitur from a difference in inflation rates.
Canada was never part of the EU, immigration into the UK hasn't ceased, nor is immigration at all relevant to inflation. You've looked at a country and compared it to a union, failed to see the plethora of differences between them and chosen an arbitrary, unrelated thing as a cause in inflationary outcomes.
Frankly Nick this conversation is a joke. I think I'm done replying to you, you have nothing insightful to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great video. I just want to point out that whilst Google and Meta use user login IDs as you said, deterministic tracking is NOT limited to login IDs. Deterministic tracking is any first party knowable piece of confirmed identifying information, such as an address, phone number, government issued ID number (SSN, TFN, Licence #, etc) or any other piece of confirmed personal identifying information.
You also forgot Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, many commercial VPNs, ISP/RSPs and cell providers amongst Google and Meta for deterministic trackers. You don't need to run external code on third party sites if you control a connection source or source device and can reliably identify it and its user.
That was the whole point of mobile phones in the first place long before the internet went mainstream. To place a portable tracker on every person so they could always be found, listened in on and watched remotely. It's also why batteries in mobile phones aren't user removable anymore, because the people they wanted to track or spy on the most the most kept taking their batteries out at the important points.
Remember, even when the phone is "off" it's still trackable and can still have the mic and camera remotely activated. That's why in many F200 boards all cell phones are placed in a faraday box in another room completely during important meetings.
18:53 Why not Opera?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do you have someone who simply does not understand even the fundamental basics of economics and economic policies as an economic correspondent? Squeezing people's budgets so their mortgages eat up all of their disposable income IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF RATE RISES.
The Bank of England wants you to stop spending to collapse demand and thus get inflation under control. That's the entire point, it's supposed to be difficult for people. Even the last guy, gary understood economics better than Hellia and he had no clue.
Please get someone actually competent into the role, this stuff is far too important to be left to an empty headed campaigner. People need genuinely accurate information in this space. If you make no other change at CH4 News, make that one. Hire someone who genuinely knows, someone with an actual economics degree whom has successfully worked in the field. Not a journalist with a coms degree.
Edit:
Every politician regardless of which side of the house they're on, appearing on this program is saying the same thing in a mealy-mouthed way. So is everyone appearing here from the finance sector.
All the mortgage pain that's going on right now is on purpose, it's how you get inflation under control. The sooner everyone stops spending on luxuries and confines themselves to just the essentials, the sooner this all ends.
Spend less, be ever more productive. That's how capitalism works.
On the rental market, being a landlord is not supposed to be a business. If your sole source of income is the investment properties you lease out, you're doing it wrong. You purchase a property as a long term investment, it pays off as its value increases over the medium to long term. Rent is only supposed to offset a portion of the mortgage so the investment doesn't cost as much, it isn't supposed to cover the entire mortgage let alone make you a profit. The profit comes when you eventually either own the property outright or you sell it for more than you purchased it for in 20-30 years time. These a medium to long term investments, you're not supposed to generate immediate regular income from it.
If your landlord is on an interest only mortgage they're essentially subleasing to you, are unsound financially and you should flee from them as quickly as possible. Being a landlord is for those already independently wealthy, not for those looking to become that way.
On the other side of this, we have to understand why housing is so expensive to begin with. Everyone in this panel wants to talk about increasing supply, in an ever denser environment where through a combination of natural growth and immigration population continues to grow at a pace it simply wouldn't be physically possible to build enough homes to keep up with. Supply is not a silver bullet, it's necessary to increase but it isn't the whole story.
The Tories are talking about meeting their quota for affordable housing schemes as if it's a good thing. It's not. These schemes have quotas for a reason, they exist to artificially inflate demand in the market to keep prices growing. Without such schemes demand for purchasing homes would plummet and prices along with them, right down back into the affordable range.
Supply is a convenient political soundbyte but if you only ever address supply it will be an issue for future generations and setting the stage for a major disaster.
The fundamental causal problem is one of physics. The country, as all countries are, is a fixed size in km2. It cannot magically get bigger, there is only so much room.
Think of a box, it's a fixed size container the same as a country. Now imagine putting an endless supply of little wooden blocks into the box. You can just dump all the blocks in, sure and start complaining that the reason the box is getting full too quickly is there's too many gaps between the blocks. Ok. You can get creative with how you arrange the blocks so as to maximise the number of blocks that will fit. But ultimately a time will come where you can't fit in anymore blocks. At a certain point the box becomes full.
If you decide partway way through your creative stacking of blocks to maximise density that actually you want to leave large spaces in the box empty and untouched, you've artificially limited the size of the box and it will fill up much faster.
Countries are the same, only people aren't blocks they have physiological, emotional and mental needs. You can try to squeeze people in like sardines, increase their density at the cost of rising violence but eventually the country too will become so full that no one can fit anymore. If you rightly say areas of the country have to remain green to preserve the environment then that time comes much faster. Indeed, that time is much sooner than most people would be comfortable with.
You can never actually solve the housing crisis until you address population growth. It has to stabilise, and if you really care about the environment/avoiding the worst of climate change, it has to decline by a rate of 7:8 people alive today by the end of this century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a dishonest narrative AJ and the yank guest are trying to push. The guest from the IEA and the South Korean University guest are the only rational people in this program.
The rest of it is just old world propaganda. I hope no one brought into it.
The situation in DPRK de-escalated under Trump because he stopped US military exercises along the DMZ. If Canada started doing annual military exercises along it's border with the USA, the USA might get a bit upset too. Especially if they happened randomly. Now consider it on a border that's still at war and contains a DMZ.
Because the USA stopped military exercises under Trump things de-escalated so far that the DPRK and South Korea ended up in talks towards peace. It was still early days but it was happening, the right steps to finally end the war and normalise their relationship. That would have been akin to the fall of the Berlin wall. Families reunited after 70 years, a new era of prosperity for both countries. It was proof positive that the aggression from the USA stands in the way of peace on the peninsula.
Things had also de-escalated so far that the USA were about to hand control of the South Korean military to South Korea. To allow it to autonomously decide it's defence strategies and how it wants to handle it's relationship with the DPRK. It was starting to create questions for South Korea around whether they even still need the USA in their country at all.
What Biden has done is come in and immediately claw back control of the South Korean military. Immediately start military exercises along the DMZ and at times into it. Throw insults and name calling around, then try to belittle the DPRK when they responded.
Testing missiles is something every country does. The USA has tested a bunch this year alone, heck they tested a 4,000 mile ICMB in August 2020.
"Sanctions" (ie. The USA, a country the DPRK is technically at war with, telling it not to do something) don't realistically mean anything. The USA doesn't have supreme authority, no one really cares what they have to say unless it involves free money or something else free. If China told the USA to not conduct missile tests anymore do you think the USA would listen? Of course not, so why does anyone imagine the DPRK will listen to the USA?
What is happening right now is not really about the DPRK, it's really about maintaining control and a military presence in South Korea, within striking distance of China.
This military presence in South Korea is an integral part of US defence strategy in the region. It gives the yanks a feeling of security on China and is part of the non-offensive treaty with Japan that sees Japan not build up it's military capabilities.
These old narratives about the DPRK won't work anymore, under Trump the world has seen just how peaceful the peninsula can be if the USA stops it's aggression. South Korea need to demand control of their military and a cessation of US provocation. They should be allowed to stay in the region, but they have to be told it's on the condition they sit quietly in the corner.
The USA is the aggressor. They're the ones behaving badly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What documentary are you talking about@AkiHimura? I'm talking about 10s of written reports with thousands of pages each, documenting torture, abuse (including sexual), violence and human rights violations complied by sanctioned NGOs for the UN starting with their first commission in 2007.
Again, I have previously linked to 6 of the reports twice but both times the comment was removed. You can search for them yourself, there is an astounding amount of evidence to back what I have said.
Poor Malaysian treatment of refugees is a long term established fact. Period.
To extend on what you were saying, given the conditions that refugees in Malaysia are forced to live in, it would be surprising to say the least if they weren't treated inadequately during the pandemic.
Malaysia is a transition country. Refugees go through Malaysia on their route to somewhere else. Malaysia isn't the intended destination, but it is where many get stuck. Those refugees are trying to get to Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore. Claiming that they're coming somehow negates the treatment they receive is a baseless argument and logical fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChangesOneTim The enforceability of a private companies terms of service (a private contract between a user and said company)is not now, nor has it ever been the central issue of any law, regulation, act or government concern. Whether E2EE is involve or not is entirely irrelevant.
These are private parties making an agreement between themselves. It is in effect legally no different than you making an agreement with your kids that if they don't clean up their rooms there won't be pudding after dinner, and then the government arguing they have to start assigning government workers to follow you around and watch your every move, otherwise how will they know if you kept your word to your kids.
That's not government concerned with private entities enforcing their agreements, it's government overreach into removing civil liberties and damaging democracy. This is government trying to spy on us to better control the population and telling us it's for our own good. Democracy dies when freedom of speech does, and how can you ever have freedom of speech if big brother is always listening?
It's always very telling of the intent of a law when politicians claim it has to do with stopping CP. Politicians ONLY ever stand up and start making arguments about CP and "won't someone think of the children " when they have a bill that would erode civil liberties and strip rights. Listen, to spread a thing one inevitably needs to expose themselves publicly. Heck, there's been tons of t openly here on YouTube for years and despite thousands of complaints to authorities it remains. If government really wanted to clean up CP it could without changing any laws. The fact of the matter is those dealing in CP are often themselves politically connected. You'd need more than two hands to count the number of politically connected individuals posthumously exposed as kiddie fiddlers in the UK in recent years. It's never about cleaning up CP, it's only about trying to silence critics because who would ever stand up and say they don't want to help exploited children?
The vast majority of companies, of all sizes and not just tech companies, have boiler plate clauses in their terms of service which they either have no means to enforce or no intention of ever doing so. Such clauses exist only to mitigate legal liabilities.
In the case of signal they don't even have an enforcement issue because their terms of service only claims that you must not do xyz and there is never talk of penalties or enforcement. It's just legalise to shift liability from signal solely to the user.
There is no "back door" in encryption. You either have an encrypted service or you don't. If one outside entity can decrypt, all can. That's the entire point of E2EE, to ensure only those parties involved can decrypt.
So, we either want privacy from government or we don't. It's binary and there is no dichotomy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, when Marvel first started pumping out movies it was one a year, at a time when superhero movies hadn't really been a thing and the marvel ones were watchable. People had lots of other movies in between, so the prospect of watching a superhero movie every other year or so was fine.
But Disney did what Disney always do. They took the numbers from one movie and decided that they could just scale that indefinitely to just get infinite money. And even though this approach hasn't worked since Michael Eisner brought the approach in, in the 80s, they still keep using it. Disney's approach doesn't just think of their customers as numbers, it assumes it and removes human behaviour from them.
I have zero doubt that if Disney could have used AI to produce these movies faster, we'd have gotten one every hour for the last however long they've been going.
No one cares about superhero movies anymore and that's not going to change any time soon. If they want them to become profitable again they need to cancel all the films scheduled for this year, next year and the year after. Then release one, just one, superhero movie in 2028. Then no more for a few years, then just one somewhere around 2032.
People keep talking about a shift in the cultural landscape, but there hasn't been. The cultural landscape has been the same throughout. Just an extreme minority were screaming loudly. What changed is the majority got fed up and told the minority to sit down and be quiet. But the same movies that will do well now, would have done well then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree that Ashley is a quality attorney. I find her naive and unprofessional. But I think that's important.
It's precisely that lack of professionalism that I would humbly suggest is the root of her finding out this information from Bradley. To understand what happened we need to remember some important points to contextualise. Please remember, Bradley wasn't just Wade's attorney. He testified that he and Wade had been friends since middle school, that's his childhood friend. The law offices were 3 childhood best friends working together.
It wasn't just some professionals who met as lawyers and came together to form a law office for mutual benefit. They were best friends. We're talking people who went to each others weddings, had dinners together as couples, hung out at eat others houses, saw their kids grow up. They have history and over that many years Bradley is going to become just as loyal to Joycelyn as to Wade himself. Think about your best friend and his wife you like, would you be upset if your friend stiffed her?
Bradley tried to claim privilege but the judge said no it's not. Because he got the information through friendship and not as an attorney. We need to really understand Bradley and Wade are trying very hard to blur the lines of their friendship into a professional attorney client relationship. But they were just being friends.
He was Wade's attorney only really in name. Because remember Wade is himself an attorney, I guarantee Wade wrote many of the filings in the divorce himself and just had Bradley file. They're friends, he's just helping his friend.
We also need to put in context that this is happening right after the allegation against Bradley and the dissolving of the partnership. Their friendship was also falling apart at that time, they weren't on good terms. So Bradley is mad over how one friend is treating another in a divorce, and he's mad his friend isn't backing him up in an allegation he claims is false.
Willis didn't just call Bradley like some clandestine entity and say "they're investigating us" then hang up. She clearly brought up the allegations against him, that they may be revealed during the open access or that they had already been revealed by the open access. That's why he's calling Ashley to see if he needs representation.
Ok, so we have him worried for his own freedom and reputation, mad at his childhood friend for not having his back in an allegation he denies and upset with the same friend at how he behaved in his divorce and wronged Joycelyn his other friend.
It's in that context, with all of those emotions going on inside Bradley that you then get 4 lawyers in a conference room chatting while they wait for pleadings. 4 lawyers who are professional acquaintances, work friends really and one of which was a long term actual friend of Bradley whom had socialised with him outside of their professional relationship. The presence of that friend in particular in the room is immediately going to change Bradley's mindset. He isn't a lawyer sitting with opposing counsel. He's sitting in a room with his friend and 2 other work friends. He feels more relaxed and open.
Then you have Ashley, this school girl-esque, naive and talkative person you just know is a gossip queen. So she starts yabbering away and its in that context that Bradley starts spilling the beans. I don't think he meant to on the record, I think he just viewed it as gossip between friends with the aforementioned factors in his mind.
He has also testified in subsequent interactions he did not wish to be relied upon as a source or testify, and Ashley has confirmed that, as have the text exchange in record. I suspect he got caught up in a conversation, said some things with anger in his heart that he later regretted saying, then either had a sunk cost fallacy or felt compelled to keep giving information.
We see evidence of this in how strongly he fought not to testify and how evasive he has been on the stand.
I do not believe for a moment that Ashley Merchant created a honeypot for Bradley and used herself as bait. You might make an argument that the naivety and lack of professionalism is all an act and she uses it to throw people off guard and extract information. But a honeypot? I see no evidence of that. What I see evidence of is someone who should only be a junior lawyer being thrust into a case out of her depth and getting lucky on some information due to coincidence and circumstance.
P.S. Bradley testified it was $20K and it went to the employee making the allegation. He also testified that it was brokered by Wade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pttybr yeah, no.
When we work to eradicate a virus, it gets eradicated. When we don't work to eradicate it, it stays.
CoVID-19 is a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are not seasonal. No credible virologist said otherwise, and we have seen first hand it is not seasonal.
A vaccine has to be safe, effective and have a schedule to provide adequate long term protection before it is released. Of 188 potential vaccine candidates, 3 are both extremely promising for those requirements AND relatively close (9 - 14 months) away from approval.
Locking out communities with community transmission is the literal national strategy. It is effective, it is necessary, it's how we have to work for the time being.
Once NSW gets their community transmission under control the border will be lifted. QLD is not the only state locking NSW out. SA, NT, Tasmania and WA have all closed themselves off to NSW and Victoria for the time being.
It is a rational reaction to a credible hazard that has the potential to further cripple the economy.
1
-
1
-
Not only are those very different fields@pttybr but you still did not answer my question. You just keep making the same claim over and again.
It's interesting that originally you said you "saw a virologist say" and now you're talking about finding a written article. It's very funny. I asked for their name and where they said it. If you ever do end up linking to anything, or actually answering my question I bet you don't link to anything from an Australian. In fact I bet it'll specifically be a yank, despite us knowing definitively since April that the yanks are lying to their population and the world, saying things counter to the evidence and medical fact.
Ultimately however, whether you do actually end up answering my question is irrelevant. In the end, the reality is such a statement is objectively false.
* Coronaviruses are not seasonal, and in particular CoVID-19 certainly is not.
* Vaccines have to be safe and effective before they are released.
* Borders and hotspot isolation are literally the long term national strategy on CoVID-19.
What Queensland is doing is rational, the same as all other states and is backed by medical organisations the AMA, RACGP, ASID, AEA and the WHO.
Again, it takes only 1 case to cross a border and the state has a massive cluster on their hands.
The only thing you are right about is that we have to live with this for awhile. It's not business as usual. It's not life as usual. If your community gets a cluster, expect it to be isolated from everyone else. That's the reality until we have a vaccine
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ToothbrushMan With 18 years in medicine I can assure you that most people don't follow medical advice in 2023. In fact if patients did simply flow the medical advice the national cost of the NHS would be slashed. More importantly that's a terrible analogy.
No, the UK doesn't have to follow EU law in order to trade with the EU, and no the UK doesn't have to trade with the EU. You might personally see trade with the EU as desirable, but to claim it's something the UK has no choice in is outright false.
That's a good thing because the EU is driving full speed towards a social and economic collapse, somewhere ~20 years from now. The UK has that time to migrate away from EU trade and towards Asia. That's the point of brexit, it's why all of the UKs trade deals since brexit have focused on the Asia Pacific and Oceania.
When yankville, Canada, Oceania, China, Russia, SEA or the EUs other trade partners trade with the EU they do not ratify EU law to do so. Individual manufacturers have to follow the EU rules for their products that are specifically distributed to the EU but that's it. Products not destined for the EU, don't have to follow EU regulations and the nations those companies HQ in don't have to hold a bunch of other EU regulations.
It's a decision each business has to make for themselves on whether exporting to the EU makes sense for them. See there's this thing called sovereignty, and it means other countries don't get a say on what happens domestically.
I know you're going to hate everything I just wrote, but whether you like it or not that's how things actually work. The UK isn't going to be part of the EU ever again, so let it go. If you want to be in the EU so badly, move there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@makh I'm sorry but your description of capitalism isn't real. Everything after you get paid, and if you mess up you might get fired is wrong. Businesses of any scale don't automatically go bankrupt or stop operating because they "messed up" or even because they broke a law. I'd be surprised to hear about a company with profits in excess of £2M pa (which is still a small business) that hasn't broken a law somewhere and suffered some kind of fine. The nature of business is to push up against regulation in order to maximise profit, and that results in creep into the unlawful. It's only remedied when government pushes back on an adequate way.
When even ultra small businesses, mom and pop corner stores, need to pay for some kind of fine, they "mess up" or they want to undertake some kind of upgrades, guess who pays for it? That's right, their customers.
If netting £72Bn profit through the breaking of regulations results in an inconsistently enforced maximum penalty of £3M those revenue numbers stack up. Those are insufficient regulations to change behaviour. It's the equivalent of fining people 1p for speeding and no demerit points. How many people do you think would ignore speed limits if their maximum potential penalties would be a fine for 1p and that might only happen 1 out of 20 times they speed. It's worse than that though. What if the maximum penalty was 1p for speeding and the only way you could get caught was if you self reported to police.
The penalty should be an uncapped percentage of gross revenues, and the environment ministry should be actively monitoring the waterways daily.
Listen, the NHS is state run, it's going to need investment to fix. Where do you think that money is going to come from? Where do you think the money for higher nurses wages would come from if it has to be new money? The consumer ALWAYS pays. There's conflict of interest in every endeavour in existence regardless of who runs it or the conditions under which it operates. That isn't the problem here.
As CH4 keeps repeating the system hasn't seen any substantial upgrade since Victorian times. That ended in 1901 mate, we're talking about a sewages and water runoff system that's basically 122 years old. It wasn't upgraded by government when it was state owned. Where do you think private business would have gotten the proceeds to upgrade it over the last 30 years they've had control? The consumer. You'd pay for it either way, it's really just about when.
They've been doing these spills since before privatisation. They weren't going to magically stop just because it stopped being state owned. If the companies had proactively decided to increase prices to fix the problem decades ago, how do you think consumers would have reacted?
Now they have consumer demand to justify price increases behind. You don't get anything for free mate. You can't expect government and business to pay your way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't agree with your definition of canon, drinker. I don't think it has anything to do with copyright or the fans. I think canon is the narrative established by the original creator. For this reason, I don't believe canon can ever be changed, nor can the rights to it ever be transferred.
If I tell a story about an alien robot that has a heros arc battling lizards from neptune and learns how to be more human in the process, everything that occurs in my story is canon. Anything that comes after, any sequel, any prequel, any spin off, has to comply with the canon set up in the original story. If they do, their stories become part of the canon. If they don't, they aren't. They're just cheap knock offs, even if they're official.
If I invent a device that creates localised anti-gravity, I can patent it. I can't patent the concept of anti-gravity, that's just a concept. But I can patent my specific solution, the design, the formula, if you will, that I invented to make anti-gravity happen. That formula is my IP. That's the thing I can sell. That's the thing I can prevent competitors from selling. If I start manufacturing my invention under a company and down the line for one reason or another, I decide to sell my company, the buyer will own the rights to manufacture my invention. I might even include the patent itself in the sale. The buyer would then be in their legal right to make revisions to my invention as they see fit. But at that point it's no longer my invention. It's a new IP from them. Yes my IP was the inspiration, but it was also the inspiration for my competitors too. The new IP stands on its own and is the organic property of the new company who won't sue themselves for making a derivative work of the original IP. That's why such changes need to legally be disclosed and are usually done so as a "product name 2" or similar.
The same is true for works of fiction, whether they're literary, film or other. The canon is the specific formula, the way the characters are written, the things they've done, how they'll do things. That's the IP. That's the thing that's protected. When the rights to the work are brought up, they cannot magically go back in time and change how I originally created that work. They can make revisions, but in doing so they create a derivative work which is its own separate IP. They own the rights so they won't sue themselves but the new separate IP isn't canon to the original, it's separate. A knock-off.
That's why there can only ever be 3 star wars films and nothing else. No expanded universe. No prequels. No disney star wars. Just 3 original films and nothing else. The rest are their own separate derivative works that are not canon to the original even if they're "official". Just knock offs.
I also don't see how anyone can look at that "it's all just fiction what does it matter" argument with a straight face. They're all just cars, what does it matter what brand they are? They're all engagement rings, what does it matter what kind of stone it is or how much I spent? By this argument Batman and Spiderman inhabit the same city at the same time, ignoring each other, whilst Jaws stalks off the coast, and Michael Myers reaps havock across the river. But not to worry Sherman and Mr Peabody can alter the timeline whenever they want. It's intellectually incoherent and you should laugh in the fact of anyone trying to make it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sounds like a bunch of technologically illiterate fools are signing up without understanding what they're signing up for.
Do you not know what trial means? All websites have their T&C at the bottom. Read them before you give someone a credit card number. If someone is offering you an unsolicited free prize why would you think that's anything other than a way to make money? No one wants to just give you free things with no expectations of any money being made, they'd go bankrupt overnight. Come on, use your head.
I can't have sympathy for these people. These aren't scams, if you don't bother to read the terms you're agreeing to before agreeing that's on you.
Based on the definition MarketPlace is using here for a scam, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all "scam" people with a free trial of their online service that renews automatically. Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, HayU, Stan, TrlGo, and every other streaming video service including YouTube premium the very platform marketplace has this video on, are all "scamming" because they offer free trials then auto renew. Google and Apple both do it with their music and games services. Amazon does it with Prime and audible. Ancestry does it with their platform. Facebook does it with "free credit" on ad accounts. Even CBC Gem does this.
A trial means you are signing up to something, if you're giving payment details it means they're going to keep taking money until you actively cancel.
People need to stop hiding behind willful ignorance and take some responsibility for themselves. The only people scamming here are the ones complaining.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every bit of the original comment is complete nonsense. For starters there had been 91 years (almost a century) since 1930 when OP wrote the comment 9 months ago not 70.
That inability of OP to do basic math is a great set up for the lack of credibility this comment has.
Housing affordability is a problem, and I'll get to pulling OPs comment apart in a moment but it's important to note that housing affordability is not the cause of poverty. These aren't homeless people queuing for food and baby essentials, these are housed people some of whom may even own their home.
There have been no times throughout history where poverty did not exist. Poverty is an essential feature of all economic systems, that it exists tells us far less about a market than how we respond to it and the level of economic mobility. That a one woman show is able to meet and importantly afford demand for baby essentials for low income in the entire area is very informative. It tells us overall the market is not doing anywhere near as poorly as this story would have us believe.
1930 saw a depression with unemployment rising to 22% (1:5) over 1930-1933. From 1840 to 1911 housing prices throughout the UK fell because housing stock more than doubled and houses were built smaller (thus cheaper). This led to housing prices falling from 13x annual income in 1840 to just 4x annual income in 1911. By 1930 housing prices were rising again and in 2017 the average home was 8x annual income, still cheaper as a portion of real wages than in 1840 and with more expensive materials and greater luxuries to boot.
The average house sold for £750 in 1930 where the average annual earnings were £165 or to put that another way housing prices were 4.5x annual income. That's an 11% rise in housing prices over the previous decade.
An remember when we're talking about a house in 1930 we aren't talking about the same kind of house you'd buy today. Even where the house was originally built in 1930, purchasing it today it will have been significantly upgraded since it was first built in order to meet standards and include expected luxuries that simply didn't exist in 1930.
Comparing the price of a house almost a century ago to today without the context of what wages were at the time is intellectually dishonest. £1 in 1930 is not the same buying power as £1 in 2022, nor are today's wages comparable to 1930s wages. Real wages are the metric to look at and real wages have risen since 1930. If you aren't familiar with what real wages means as an economics term look it up.
Despite being housing being 4.5x the average wage, we're talking averages here, there were still people on far less than that and of course the 22% who had no job at all. These people were all locked out of the housing market. Indeed in real terms poverty was far higher in 1930 than it is in 2022, so much so that 1930 is the yard stick by which we measure how bad things have gotten.
Average annual wages in 2022 UK are £29,600. That's 179x the wage in 1930, not "barely 100x".
The real drivers of childhood poverty are far more nuanced and complex than housing affordability or wage growth. Many of the factors are social in nature, not financial. Things like home environment, education level, self esteem, substance abuse, community acceptance, etc.
Wage growth only really matters if prices don't go up or fall, wage growth that merely reflects price increase doesn't help anyone. Indeed that kind of market leads to hyperinflation.
This is again where real wages comes in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xninja2369 No mate. You're coping hard. Corporate for profit projects are better for the vast majority of people than projects run by volunteers and given away for free. We know that objectively through existing software and choices. If free software was as good or better, it would be used because people like free. It isn't, because it's unusable for most people.That's reality.
People convert between windows and macos every day.
Let's go a set further most people move between their phone OS and their desktop OS every day.
All of these OSes have changed significantly over the years. People still use them. It isn't change people are afraid of. It isn't novelty people are afraid of. People just want a polished, feature rich, fool proof, secure OS, or piece of software, or whatever, that looks pretty and does EVERYTHING they want with as little effort as possible and as minimal a learning curve as possible. That's why most people would rather be spied on by Microsoft and pay them $300 to do it than use linux. That's why people would rather pay $80/m to have adobe steal their IP, than use GIMP. That's why Google was able to shove Mozilla out of the way with Chrome so effortlessly, where Mozilla only ever was on top because they dethroned IE post their monopoly fallout.
Turns out people being paid for their time and labour do a better job than people doing it in their own time after work. Who would have thought. Chrome owned by the Linux foundation or as its own independent non-profit entity would have the same fate as Mozilla who just laid off 30% of their staff because Google aren't funding them anymore and will need to lay off another 50% before the end of next year to stay afloat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenny2tone242 Nope. It's very funny all the things you've accused me of, including some weird paranoid conspiracy. It's all just ad hom nonsense to distract away from the fact you have no argument and there is no actual credible, verifiable source of the OP "quote".
No amount of tantrums, name calling, goal post shifting, weird conspiratoids, logical fallacies in general nor any other clownish behaviour will change that.
When you have no argument, you aren't "winning". The more you comment, the bigger a fool you make of yourself.
Let me be very clear on what you'd need to confirm this quote in any credible or meaningful way. You'd need an unbiased text written before bojo entered politics by the person the quote is attributed to or, being quoted by someone else. A picture of teacher comments on a time appropriate report card for example. Such evidence may exist, but it hasn't been presented here nor in any of the tabloid rags you've pointed to. Good luck
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ImOk... He did not say it's a sad event, he did not say it's something that shouldn't have happened, he said of the arrests it's a sad day.
Your personal opinion on what people should and who not feel is not only irrelevant to my comment but irrelevant to the issue generally. The reality is hearing of corruption some people will lose faith and he's upset about that. My comment is about his words and concern, not your personal opinion.
In response to your opinion, she has not been kicked out of parliament at all, neither have any of the other members. They don't have grounds for that. Her party has removed her membership with them, so she's now independent. That her party disavow her when the optics are bad isn't cause for faith, indeed the opposite.
This corruption is alleged to have been going on for years, that means more people than those arrested knew and did nothing. But more importantly it toom years for them to be caught, meaning there can be much more corruption going on, potentially even more significant corruption that simply hasn't been identified yet.
How the parliament react in terms of processes and legislation they implement (or fail to consider) in the coming months will be the real indication of how much faith people should have in the EU parliament.
If they come out with new effective processes and independent oversight to identify corruption earlier, and stronger penalties for corruption that will go some ways to restoring faith. Failing to do so, or implementing only placeholder processes and legislation to give good optics but effectively change nothing on the other hand will be grounds for even less faith in them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annaredding No. The manner and longevity with which a strike impacts an economy depends on numerous factors. These factors include but are not limited to; the industry affected, how much of the industry is affected, the percentage of staff involved in strike action, the seniority or importance of roles involved in strike action, the duration of the strike action both total strike days and total time of industrial action, the outcome of the industrial action as a whole, the culture it takes place in both in terms of organisational and societal, the general health of the economy prior to the strike action, any key events or factors taking place in the economy at that time, etc.
All of the recent strikes involve core industries. Health, transit, logistics, etc. All things you just complained about "no working anymore" in your comment.
When any one of these industries have a strike under normal conditions, the resulting shockwave through the economy will last for years. When all of them strike during a high inflationary event, those effects last event longer and even deeper. When all of them strike during a high inflationary event for more pay from a government that has been bankrupt and borrowing money on interest to cover basic expenses since the Tong Blair labour government that makes things bad.
If they got anything even remotely like what they're asking for, that would set in structural inflation at least until the end of the decade. That would mean
The stakes are actually incredibly high. Strikes aren't a game and their consequences can be generational. Consequences like reduced productivity, lower growth, higher inflation, significantly higher prices and recession. Strikes in one industry can mean lay-offs in others. Particularly when we're talking core industries taking industrial action.
Yes, every government since at least Thatcher has done a bad job. Yes, the UK is bankrupt to the tune of almost half a trillion pounds a year. But that isn't why productivity is low. That's a complex multifactorial thing but by no small means one of those factors is the same cultural conditions that also resulted in strikes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because I can see how badly Mike wanted to find out how ridiculous his and all the rest of the comments have been I bothered to look in my clipboard and found all the parts to my comment. So just for you Mike, here you go.
---
Some corrections for all of you, because none of you know what you're talking about.
I understand that for yankvillains thinking centrally about yankville and buying into propaganda about yankvilles role in geopolitics is trendy. However Yankville defence contractors are far from the only defence contractors in the world nor the most important. The.biggest defence contractors globally are from Russia, Italy, France, the EU, and the UK
The Taliban get their weapons from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of them under strict religious (Islam) rule, all of them want to see the whole world under strict Islamic rule. They are thus naturally supporters of the Taliban, with the primary Taliban supporter, Pakistan, neighbouring Afghanistan.
Yankville has provided weapons to the Afghan government, but so has France, Russia, Germany, the UK & China. All of these countries have their own set of defence contractors, and when I say gave I mean as in for free.
Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda Maryland. Raytheon is headquartered in Waltham Massachusetts. Not Washington. Extraterritorial arms sales go through the yankville state department, not directly through a defence contractor.
The 2021 yankville fortune 500 has Walmart in the number one spot. The number two spot is Berkshire Hathaway, Warran Buffett's holding company. Three of the top ten are yankville oil companies. Two of the top ten are banks. I understand that because the media go on endlessly about "big tech" that it must seem as though they're the richest companies, but they're not. Further Alphabet Inc (the parent company for Google) hold multiple subsidiaries that are defence contractors.
Microsoft, Amazon, Blue Origin, SpaceX (Alphabet is it's largest shareholder), Bigelow Aerospace and Apple are all likewise defence contractors. When you talk about "big tech" you're talking about defence contractors. However, with the sole exceptions of Alphabet & SpaceX they aren't creating missiles, tanks or guns. Comparing them to Lockheed Martin is comparing apples to oranges.
Total company worth is entirely irrelevant. Traditional defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop, General Dynamics and Boeing have deep roots with the Pentagon, so deep that indeed one could be forgiven for not realising they're not just subsidiaries of the Pentagon.
To pretend they don't have power is ignorant in the extreme. Keeping these traditional contractors afloat is key to the continuation of the yankville economy. If any of those companies collapse so does the yankville economy through runaway recession into economic depression. That's how big a footprint their extended operations have on the economy.
Like it or not, the world absolutely runs on oil and acquiring it is paramount to not only keeping the defence contractors afloat, but also other key sectors such as oil giants, pharmaceuticals (also on the top 10 richest yankville companies) & banking. Without all that oil acquisition the yankville economy collapses. It's far from a relic. You might wish it was, but that's nothing like reality.
The 2021 yankville direct defence budget is $740.5Bn with the connected industries budget totalling $3.5T.
There are 215 countries in the world, the top 30 of which have a GDP of greater than $740.5Bn USD, and the top 50 of which have a GDP greater than $730Bn USD.
The 2020 fiscal year revenue for Amazon globally was $386.06Bn, for Apple was $274.51Bn and for Alphabet (parent company of Google) was $182.527Bn. Combined that's just $843.097Bn. It hardly eclipses the yankville defence budget, indeed the opposite way around.
Defence contractor stocks are actually a safe, stable investment. They have guaranteed funding which is projected 5 years out and they have guaranteed growth. That's why Berkshire Hathaway (remember #2 on the yankville fortune 500) own so much defence stock, it performs very well as a safe investment.
Apple do not deal in slavery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From unicourt
AUSTIN CLAGETT V MORRILTON GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB ETA -NON-TRIAL
Case Summary
On October 10, 2022, Austin Kenway Clagett (“Plaintiff”), represented by Andrew Payne Norwood of Denton & Zachary, PLLC, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Morrilton Golf and Country Club d/b/a Morrilton Country Club and J&C Motors of Morrilton d/b/a Jay Hodge Ford of Morrilton (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief for alleged breach of contract by Defendants. This case was filed in the Faulkner County District Court of Arkansas with Judge Weaver presiding.
In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed, “On October 8-9, 2022, Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club held a golf tournament titled ‘The Tournament of a Century.’”
The plaintiff alleged that he “saw [a] Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club’s Facebook post promising ‘a truck . . . to the first person who makes a hole in one on the designated giveaway hole’ on the ‘Arkansas Golf Tournaments!!!’ Facebook group and reached out to Glynna Fisher with Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club to ask questions about the ‘The Tournament of a Century.’”
Plaintiff then alleged, “On October 4, 2022, Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club again posted on it’s Facebook page that ‘hole in one wins a truck’ for ‘$375 per team.’”
The plaintiff alleged, “On October 8, 2022, when Plaintiff arrived at the Morrilton Country Club and paid his team’s $375.00 to compete in ‘The Tournament of a Century’ and have an opportunity to win the Ford F-150” and then alleged that “[o]n October 8, 2022 at approximately 2:05 p.m. Plaintiff successfully completed a hole-in-one on Hole 10 on Morrilton Country Club.”
Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Since October 8, 2022, Plaintiff has been on contact with Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club and Separate Defendant Jay Hodge Ford in an attempt to amicably resolve this matter and collect Plaintiff’s 2022 Ford F150 4x4 Supercrew without litigation, but it is now clear neither Defendant intends to provide Plaintiff with the 2022 Ford F-150 4x4 Supercrew in question.”
Plaintiff further alleged, “As a direct and proximate cause and result of Separate Defendant Morrilton Country Club and Separate Defendant Jay Hodge Ford’s joint enterprise to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to pay for an opportunity to win a 2022 Ford F-150 4x4 Supercrew by hitting a hole in one on Hole 10 of the ‘The Tournament of a Century’ on October 8-9, 2022, Plaintiff has suffered damages for which he seeks compensation.”
Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendants breached the contract by failing to transfer title to the 2022 Ford F-150 4x4 Supercrew (Vin Number: 1FTFW1E53NKE49459) to Plaintiff” and that “Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff would rely on the promise.”
The plaintiff alleged that “[b]ecause of Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants’ promise a benefit was conferred on Defendants” and that “Defendants should be estopped from rescinding their promise and should be ordered to transfer title to Plaintiff immediately as promised.”
Plaintiff presented three claims for relief, including claims for alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and attorney’s fees and costs.
In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for declaratory relief stating that Defendants breached the parties’ contract and that the defendants should transfer the title of the Ford F-150 4x4 Supercrew to Plaintiff. The plaintiff also requested an award for damages, together with costs of litigation
Case Details
Case Number: ********1318
Filing Date: 10/10/2022
Case Status: Pending - Other Pending
Case Type: Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury
Court: Faulkner County Courts
Courthouse: Faulkner County Circuit Court
County, State: Faulkner, Arkansas
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sick of these softball questions to israeli authorities that allow them to perpetrate the lies that Palestine is an equal opponent, that they don't want to be a democracy and most heinous of all, that this somehow all started on 7 Oct.
None of those things are true, not even remotely. Palestine is under occupation by Israel. Period. That means Israel is in control of Palestine and it has been that way for 50 years. Period. Israel will not allow the PA to hold elections because they are worried Hamas will win those elections in the west bank.
Hamas is born of occupation, they are people seeking to free themselves from occupation. Israel breaks international law by continuing the occupation for so long. It breaks international law by introducing Israeli settlers into the occupied territories of Palestine that it guards with israeli soldiers armed to the teeth. It breaks international law when those same settlers attack, shoot at, blockade and drive from their homes Palestinians already living there. It breaks international law when it undertakes apartheid, such that it controls even which streets Palestinians inside Gaza and the West Bank can walk on, which roads they can drive on, which streets they can open businesses on, and which, inside Palestinian territory are exclusively for Israelis.
Israel talks of Hamas firing rockets, but Israel have the iron dome and those rockets hurt no one. The same can not be said of Israeli bombs that target schools, mosques, childcare centres and hospitals.
7 Oct was retaliation. Was it horrific? Absolutely. But you can only oppress a people, murder them in their beds, dispossess them of their land for so long before they fight back, before they defend themselves. Don't start the story at 7 Oct, start the story where it belongs, with 50 years of brutal occupation and all the Israeli violence in the weeks and months leading up to 7 Oct. Start with the 500-2000 Palestinians murdered by Israel EVERY YEAR during what Israel call times of peace.
Your interviewee is not interested in peace, she's interested in the subjugation and genocide of a people.
If you want peace, start by ending the occupation.
1
-
1
-
Yankville, is full of yankvillians. The amoral, villainous attack dog of the actual centre of Western power, England. If you're a yankvillian it doesn't matter if you aren't directly involved in what your country is doing, if you aren't actively, physically putting it to an end you're just as culpable.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
As England becomes increasingly rudderless, increasingly totalitarian, the rest of the west runs in circles, and their elites just go for the short sighted cash grab, because the truth is they were only ever puppets. Your country and mine alike. Our elites in the colonies don't have the guidance from Westminster anymore, so they find themselves directionless.
There would be no BRICS if Westminster was strong. If the LSX was strong. If English unity was strong and their strength broadcast echoed across the west.
Instead Scotland wants to leave their union, Germany are stockpiling and have ideas of owing europe again, japan is building an offensive capacity again, BRICS has 10 key member states and an ever growing list of partners waiting to get in. The Chinese military has become the pre-eminent military power on the planet, and we're all here talking about race and gender like children.
Europe doesn't know what to do without the inflows of yankvillian money its had since WW2. They also lack vision for where to go next. Indeed as yankville pulls away into nationism, europe thinks they're now at odds. The west is dissolving.
Africa is getting itself together now, because there's no coordinated action to prevent that without England. This is the actual fall of the English empire that gave us 70 years of peace. Our future as a world looks uncertain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepenguin9 Might I say that your statements about the economy aren't accurate. The economy didn't get into this state recently. It's taken 30 years of bipartisan mismanagement to get it to this position.
The budget deficit, that is not enough money in government coffers to cover costs so they have to take loans, started under Blair at £50Bn annually. By the time the Tories took over in 2010, Labour had ballooned that out to £328B annually. That's a third of a trillion pounds in loans the government had to take EVERY YEAR.
The Tories took over and they managed to balloon it even further to £489B annually by the time Sunak took office. That's effectively half a trillion pounds in loans taken every year. Half a trillion pounds added to the national debt yearly.
Under Sunak and Hunt, in just 18 months they've managed to drive that deficit back down to £327B, effectively where Labour left off. Sunak has a plan and goal of getting rid of the deficit altogether by 2030, he's on his way and his plan makes perfect sense economically. The lower that deficit is, the more money the UK has for large infrastructure projects and the more attractive it becomes for investment. Inversely, the higher the deficit, the worse the quality of services will be, the poorer the infrastructure and the less attractive the UK becomes to investment.
Starmer is ON RECORD saying just a few weeks ago that he would fund many of his pie in the sky policies on borrowed money. That is, his intention is to GROW the deficit, not shrink it and try to return the budget to surplus like Sunak.
Now, you can obviously vote however you like. If you want to vote Labour, please do so. But please do not misrepresent the facts. BOTH major parties have been abysmal with the economy, and Labour under Starmer would like to continue being abysmal with the economy. If that appeals to you, all the power to you my friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lhourigan1 Royal bloodlines have absolutely nothing to do with eugenics. Like literally, nothing. Royal bloodlines is about royal ascent, the ability for your claim to the throw to not be challenged by someone else in line due to your genealogy or amount of royalty you are born with. It's why royals don't as a typical rule marry commoners because they dilute the bloodline and invite challenge to the thrown for any offspring.
Remember, royalty is about being divine appointment. That a god commanded your ancestor to rule, so the more related you are to that ancestor the more valid your claim to the thrown.
Similarly, eugenics is not a fascist idea. In the early 20th century it was widely accepted across academia and practiced in countries like the USA until the 1960s, Sweden until 2012 and Norway until 2014. It has historical roots in the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians too. More recently it has begun to see somewhat of a revival in modern academia. If you've ever considered in passing that perhaps becoming a parent should require a licence so that bad things don't happen to kids, that's eugenics. Similarly, if you're of the opinion that abortion of a foetus that early testing has demonstrated would be disabled is ok and should be allowed, that also is eugenics.
Eugenics is not royal ascent, and it is not ethnic genocide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What nonsense. A life requiring delusion to find meaning is no life at all. Religion makes slaves of us all. To claim that meaning can not exist in ones life without religion is holds no water.
Yes, if one fills their life with consumerism or other hollow pursuits they will lack meaning. But to suggest all pursuits outside religion, or spirituality hold that same outcome is ludicrous. Indeed, religion itself quite often leaves one wanting and lacking true meaning or purpose. There is more meaning in truth, than there should ever be in the delusion of religion.
The rise of anxiety and depression do not come from a lack of religion, but from a simultaneous lack of struggle and lack of life experience. To the infant, the momentary lose of a toy in discipline seems both an eternity and life changing, yet it turns out to be neither. When we breed children whom have been so wrapped in cotton wool their entire lives that they've never experienced and overcome repeated insurmountable odds to shape their confience. Never learned self reliance through skills and experience. Never had to want for anything or struggle through life. Where all things are delivered on silver platter. What should one expect the outcome to be as independence is thrust upon them but a bundle of nerves knowing they can't stay as they are but unable to comprehend a way forward. And even if they should comprehend a means, deficient in the self confidence and self reliance to make it a reality. After all what is anxiety but doubt, in ones self, in ones actions, in ones place. And what is depression but knowing one can not stay as they are, but being for whatever reason resistant or unsure of how to change.
The problem is not a lack of religion, but inadequate community and parental structures united under a unified goal. Secularism can get there. It just needs society to finally stop returning to the drug of religion like a battered spouse to an abusive ex seeking tempofary familiarity over the ability to grow and thrive through something new.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
O.o
Usually you are funny. This just came off as an ignorant generational attack lacking insight or reference experience.
First thing to note is people born in the mid 60s through to early 80s are Gen X. Boomers were born prominently in the 40s and 50s, but extend into early 60s. The youngest boomers are 55, people in their 40s aren't boomers they're Gen X.
The majority of the comments you showed came from people in their late 30s through early 50s. Gen X in other words, not boomers. I'm not sure how many 70 year olds there are interested in running Instagram meme accounts.
A meme account attempts to spray as much random stuff as possible to catch as many likes as possible. I don't think there are any meme accounts that are consistent in their messaging. Making a "joke" about that inconsistency pointed at a particular generation as if only they do it when all accounts in that category behave in such a manner is dishonest.
You started off the video saying you weren't going to attack the desire to be nostalgic because everyone regardless of generation has such a desire; only to immediately attack the desire to be nostalgic.
And it seems like your only real attack was "oh but you did a racism".
There was lower crime
But you did a racism
There were fewer people
But you did a racism
Society was more homogeneous and united
But you did a racism
Literally created the internet that enables you to live off making videos
But you did a racism
People were polite to one another, and considered each others opinions as opposed to living in an echo chamber that literally and genuinely threatens to crumble society
But you did a racism.
Housing prices were affordable
But you did a racism
And also it must be all the boomers fault for buying their houses that people can't afford houses anymore and not a complex multi factor economic problem involving a corrupt international banking system, inflation, international investments, immigration and natural population growth, state land use availability and construction regulations, environmental regulations, high wages in trades due to qualified shortages because millennials and zoomers think everyone has to go to university, reduced economic mobility and a million other factors. You know, all the stuff these memes were talking about things were better without..
This was a very unfortunate video that came off as lazy and desperate. I look forward to you returning to your regular quality
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It appears clear from the outset that regular everyday Indians have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from this rise in cases. That can only make this situation worse and can only mean it will repeat
One only must see the vision being shared on this video and other news reports over the last week to see nothing has been learned.
People lining up for vaccines or tests in tight, enclosed spaces without leaving any social distancing. People crowding around hospitals even camping out; places they know people are infectious, without social distancing. People not wearing masks including those tending to someone with severe disease or with severe disease themselves just breathing out into the open spreading virus. One place handing out cloths from a communal stockpile. People seated in waiting areas within social distancing.
This is how the virus spreads. I suspect we will see another series of super spreader events surrounding hospitals towards the end of next week. Remember, we're always 2 weeks behind on the virus.
Perhaps the Indian government should have done more but regular Indians have to acknowledge the leading role they played and continue to play in making this outbreak possible. Turn that anger inward and look to ones self for blame.
To any Indian reading this, please understand the concept of social distancing. It means you should not go anywhere near other people, EVER, until the pandemic is over. Physically stay as far away from other people as possible at all times, and never closer than 1.5m
If you can stretch out your arm and touch someone else, you're far too close. 1.5m is around 2 arm lengths away so it shouldn't be possible to touch anyone. If someone tries to come closer, make them stop and physically distance yourself.
If you don't have an ESSENTIAL reason to leave your house, don't. Stay inside your house, don't accept visitors even if they're relatives. If you must leave your house for an essential reason, socially distance and wear a mask.
Yes, your mask will feel uncomfortable especially during prolonged use. Feeling a little discomfort is far better however than severe CoVID-19. Return home as quickly as practical and stay there unless another essential reason to leave occurs.
Essential reasons mean
- To acquire essential food
- To acquire medical assistance
- To attend an essential job
The following are examples of things that are NOT essential and should be avoided;
- In person religious ceremonies, festivals or celebrations
- In person political gatherings
- In person Weddings
- In person Funerals
- Anywhere in person that people congregate
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having the technology to do something isn't the whole story. We have the technology to end world hunger today but doing so would produce more carbon, devastate the environment, increase population even faster and collapse the global economy.
You can't focus just on one thing, solving one disaster only to create 3 more isn't a solution. Early onset osteopaenia, other bone density problems, chronic anaemia, early cardiovascular diseases, liver and kidney damage, etc are all on the rise, particularly in women on the backs of predominantly women switching to vegan diets.
Major infrastructure projects take time, there aren't just physical limitations to consider, there's social impacts. If you suddenly put 100K people in a country out of work with no chance of new employment you're going to have major civil unrest and economic recession.
Even Taalas didn't go so far as to pretend industry could be significantly reduced in cO2 output let alone become clean. The reductions he's referring to come mostly from reduced output from reduced demand. Even that reduction means job losses, and worse, poorer lives for everyone but those who are already mega rich.
Battery technology is still highly polluting, especially Li-Ion. Solar panel are also polluting in manufacture. Both solar panels and batteries have a limited lifespan after which they become disposable, highly toxic landfill that can not currently be recycled.
None of these measures, not one of them, tackles the real driving force behind climate change. Population growth. They just place us in a position where we're aiming for ever decreasing, ever out of reach targets.
If you want to do something about climate change we must do something about the global birth rate and redesign our economies to work with a flat or decreasing population.
If we're going to make comparisons to 1750, like EuroNews have with atmospheric content of greenhouse gases, then in the same period we've had a 149% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide we've had a 1412% increase in population. It's expected to be a 1900% increase by 2050.
It's the largest sustained population boom of any species on our planet in history. The more of us there are the more resources we use, the more food we need, the more emissions we create to make the same level of production, the more vehicles there are, the more energy we need. This can't go on. It's a difficult discussion but it's one we must have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video acts like the 1.5°C limitation is a won and done project. As if, reaching a static reduction will get us there. But that's not what's happening. The targets we set today, won't be the targets of tomorrow.
As population goes up, so do emissions. This is a constantly moving target that net zero isn't a solution too. Net zero isn't even a solution to getting reductions sufficient to limit us to 2-3°c let alone 1.5°c. Net zero doesn't mean zero emissions (which isn't currently technologically possible without losing lifestyle), it means carbon offsets. You still produce just as much greenhouse gas, you just sell those emissions on paper to another country. Or plant trees (often far away from emissions) so that on paper your emissions balance even though in real life it doesn't work that way.
Increasing global population means the reductions target is ever moving. Think of it like a bowl of porridge. If you increase the number of people trying to eat from the bowl, either everyone has to eat less or you need to make more porridge. If you're constantly adding new people to the bowl and rule out making more, then the amount people can eat isn't going down linearly because some of the porridge has already been consumed by those who ate previously. So you need to divide an ever smaller amount across an ever bigger number of people until eventually there's so little to go around some people have to go without.
Every IPCC report for the last 30 years has explained this concept. Climate change will always be an uncontrolled problem as long as we have a globally increasing population or an industrialised lifestyle.
If we want to stop having an industrialised lifestyle, that is, everything you know today gone; back to 1730s life, then that will take care of population too. Population above 1Bn globally is only facilitated by industrialisation. Everything over that number is a population boom and completely unsustainable.
Please stop spreading misinformation about climate change DW, actually understand what's going on. We don't just meet some arbitrary emissions target and it's all over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fx_- It's a bit more economically complicated than "cities fighting for power". Remote work robs a CBD of a population which in turn robs axillary industries, such as hospitality, public transport, small retail, etc of a customer base.
Centralised work enables competition and small business market entry. Decentralisation of work through remote work reduces market competition and increases the power large corporations have over our lives.
There are some important societal questions that need to be answered regarding remote work. Is working from home worth losing most, if not all of, your cities public transport network for example? Commuter fares pay for the bulk of it.
Is it worth the collapse of thousands of small businesses, a rise in unemployment, poverty and competition for remaining available work? Is it worth the power that gives large corporations and their ability to then put downward pressure on wages, resulting in even more poverty?
Is it worth the destruction of lifestyle as the increase in poverty has dampened sales for activities, shuttering further small businesses and potentially leading to recession?
Remote work is great, but ultimately we need to strike a balance and that's where flexi work comes in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brianthelion97 You're completely out of touch with reality mate. You've brought into an alarmist narrative that simply does not exist in reality, and you're proposing solutions to problems no one asked about.
You apparently don't even understand what "net zero" actually means, because apparently you believe it actually does something about climate change. It in fact does not. Net zero just means you buy enough carbon credits to "offset" the emissions your industry makes. It's what politicians say in election years when they have to seem to be doing something about climate change but know they can't without destroying the economy or upsetting a lot of people.
Climate change is fundamentally the story of the industrial revolution and the population explosion that accompanied it. We passed the point of no return on climate change in 2006, all we can really do now is attempt to slow things down which is why the language has changed from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
The climate has been changing since the mid-19th century. It's been having meaningful effects on the planet since the 1960s. But a changed climate isn't going to end the planet or our species. It just means we need to adapt to new conditions and a new reality.
Slowing things down in a meaningful way isn't something that can happen quickly. The barrier isn't an upfront cost, it's the overall stability of the economy and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that get lost in the process. Doing something meaningful about climate change is about more than just taking some reusable bags down the shops or buying a car your told is "green" but really is worse for the environment. It means a fundamental change to people's lifestyles and more importantly a lower standard of living.
That's not something that can be actioned quickly without dire consequences, nor is it something that people will be too happy about. People have to be trained to accept the new reality, in the same way retail trains consumers every day.
Natural growth is shrinking in developed countries, but exploding in the developed world. Shrinking populations are a goal, because to really do something about emissions but none of our economic models are designed for a declining population. So the problem is, how do we responsibility encourage depopulation without blowing up the economy and causing undue suffering?
You understand the environmental impact of the internet...right? That by the time you finish reading this comment the internet will have collectively created emissions equivalent to a round the world plane trip?
Do you know what mining rare earths like lithium (used in batteries for everything from cellphones to Telsas), cobalt (used in steel and electronic screens) and neodymium (used in electric motors, lasers and hardened glass products such as "gorilla glass") do to the environment? The toxic wasteland they create?
This isn't a simple problem, there are no fast solutions and many of the "solutions" you've been sold are nothing but a con job.
The climate is going to continue to change, there is nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is try to manage that change in a way that gives us the time to adapt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knosis You don't seem to have understood. The bike is made from materials that require mining, smelting & petrochemicals. This stuff isn't local, nor do you want it to be. It requires logistics, which means more emissions.
The amount isn't the point, anything at scale large enough to suit everyone is a big emitter.
Infrastructure projects too are a major source of emissions.
You're parroting bad, overly simplistic, and Ignorant ideas that utterly fail to grasp what is going on.
Fundamentally we have an overpopulation problem, and the activities/consumption of all those people, and the activities required to keep them all alive at such a grand scale is a major problem for our environment.
Right now we're both using the internet which is responsible for 8% of global emissions.
AGW is caused by the artificial population boom facilitated by the industrial revolution. The emissions targets that get thrown about are a moving target because of growing population. As population increases, the amount of emissions have to decrease.
This is a highly complex problem that is going to require radical lifestyle change.
Hydrogen and carbon reinjection can buy us some time, but ultimately we eventually have to make some big changes or they'll be made for us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danarchist74 Roflmao. How could you get this so wrong?
Renewables aren't cheaper than fossil fuels, in some countries they hit the market at a higher price because of government levies and/or subsidies.
Renewables, especially solar and wind/wave; also aren't all that environmentally friendly. They use toxic rare earths, destroy habitats and have a relatively short lifespan (10-25 years) before they become toxic landfill. 95% of the materials in them can't be recycled or reused.
Renewables aren't a long term answer, they're a transitional technology like battery EV was before H-FCEV became a reality. Nuclear fusion is a long term solution and it's much closer than most people realise. Indeed they're so close to viable that countries like China are stalling their energy transition to just wait for fusion reactors.
Your nonsense about capitalism was just ridiculous. No, mining is very energy intensive. Mining absolutely destroys areas, particularly if you are mining something like rare earths that require open cut mines and create toxic waste.
There's no magic thing that can make exponential population growth and an industrial lifestyle ok. There's just not.
The vaccine for CoVID-19 would never have been possible without all the carbon emissions that go along with creating the lab tools, the scaled manufacturing of vaccine and the logistics hauling billions of doses around the world.
The same is true for every other medication in existence. From antibiotics and pain killers, to life saving oncology medicines, HIV antivirals and antipsychotics.
Petrochemicals are in everything. There would literally be no internet without them. No paint on your walls, no shoes on your feet, no bristles on your toothbrush, no shampoo in its bottle.
We don't have good alternatives mate. Fossil fuels are much more than energy generation and private transport. They're essentially the whole of technology since 1750
The problem is population. Unless we start talking about it instead of just trying to treat the symptoms, we'll always be chasing our own tails. Always be arguing about climate action that is never enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have a different take on why this show failed. I'm not part of brand knock off fandom, so maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe my distance from the brand gives me a clearer perspective, who knows.
But I think this show, can't even remember what it's called, failed for 3 reasons.
1. It's exclusive to Disney+
2. It's a kids show with a small marketing budget
3. It wasn't relevant to children
Disney+ subs are dwindling, and I'd bet dollars over doughnuts that active sign ins are even lower. That is, a fair chunk of people technically subscribed to Disney+ don't actually sign in and watch it.
Outside of your videos talking about this show, I've never heard of it. Maybe there's niche marketing, but there's no general marketing. The point of a kids show is to make new fans for your franchise. That means enticing people who didn't previously enjoy your brand to come watch. Niche ads won't hit those people so they won't know the show exists. But lastly, kids these days don't care about traditional media. They like watching some guy play a video game while they also play the video game. It's not relevant to them, or on a relevant platform.
If disney did something like released the show on YouTube, or at least the first few episodes to get young fans interested, then promoted the heck out of it on youtube through kid relevant "creators" then it probably would have gotten somewhere. Maybe. I dunno, I haven't watched it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm so tired of hearing fools claiming these people don't have empathy. Autistics don't have empathy, it's why they have no social skills. Psychopaths and sociopaths have empathy, incredibly honed empathy. You can't be charismatic, nor can you manipulate, without a strong sense of empathy.
All normal, healthy people have the ability to disregard empathy where doing so is of benefit to themselves, or their needs. The cheating spouse, the boss who dismisses an employees struggles, the soldier on the battlefield, even when you call someone a snowflake, we're disregarding empathy.
Psychopaths and others with ASPD are all just doing the same thing. Only it's things that those with a different mental pathology wouldn't disregard because there's no incentive. That's the difference. But psychopaths have empathy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ad_astra468 VW can't survive on domestic sales from nationalists alone. Such a thing isn't going to sustain the German economy let alone contribute to growth.
The international market is what they need. But the reality is that these markets are being overtaken by Chinese manufacturers. Haval (GWM), BYD, Nio, Zeekr are making waves internationally and pushing out European manufacturers.
I can tell you that in Australia, Yankville and across Asia the only VWs I'm seeing on the streets are aging 5+ years old. But I'm seeing tons of brand new Havals, Zeekr, BYDs, Toyota's, Nissan's , Hyundai's, Tesla's and Ford's. I'm also seeing TATA from India starting to creep in, in a noticeable way.
Merc is still a thing, but it isn't embracing EVs of any kind fast enough or in a compelling way. So the Mercs I see around are all models from 2019-2020.
Nationalism will only hold out in Germany too for so long. Now that these Chinese manufacturers have their sights on it, it's going to be pretty difficult for VW to compete with Haval offering twice as many features and longer range for only 2/3 the price of a VW offering. VWs only hope domestically is that Germany might introduce tarrifs because of the dumping. But honestly, given history that's unlikely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garriejackson9551 Democracy is a thing countries do, not unions.
Democracy (n)
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A union can have a democratic vote, but it is never a democracy.
Democratic (n)
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular.
Those are similar sounding words with very different meaning. It's all very well that the RCN voted against the deal. Their options were this deal or no other deal, there was no third option where they get a different deal. They voted down this deal so they've effectively voted for no deal whatsoever. Get them back to work.
It's like asking your family if they'd like some ice cream for pudding where that's all you have in, and because 2 out of 3 of them voted no, wanting a diverse set of something elses that you don't have, they should somehow be taken seriously. It's a bindery question.
The mistake you and the RCN members have made is in thinking this is an ongoing negotiation. It's not. The government threw the nursing unions a lifeline to be able to back down without losing face. They can take it or not, those are the only options.
You had your fun, you can afford second holidays on that one off payment, stop going on. The majority of working people have it significantly harder than nurses and junior doctors.
These strikes are an embarrassment that is actively damaging the economy with zero chance for getting what they're asking for.
t. 18 years in medicine
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plenty of men watch Law & Order, as well as it's spin offs. It's why the female partner is always an attractive, girl next door type. Law & Order is actually a show for couples. It's something bland where both genders can watch it equally.
Law & Order and it's spin offs attempt to mimic reality in a controlled way. Sometimes the outcome of a case is never established. Sometimes it seems they got it wrong. In every episode some bumbling cops who have no idea what they're doing or how to tackle the case just start throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. They try to pin it on everyone that crosses their path, then they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else, they fail, some time passes, they try to pin it on someone else and this person doesn't have the resources to get out of it. Whether they're actually guilty is irrelevant, it's just about closing the case and putting someones name to it. That's how real cops operate too.
Shows like CSI, NCIS, Castle, reacher and others where the criminal is always caught are actually propaganda campaigns. They exist to change behaviour, which is why they often get preferential treatment in terms of permits and government grant funding. They target a family audience. If all you see on TV in regards to crime are shows where police always catch the person who did it then you inevitably make two assumptions
1. Police are competent at their jobs, and always catch criminals. This makes you feel safer and in turn become more productive.
2. It's pointless trying to commit a crime because you are only going to be caught. Studies have literally shown that when these kinds of crime shows are popular, instance of crime goes down...by a lot.
Crime shows built for women specifically are "who done its". Women like to imagine they are very good are puzzles and deduction, so they tend to enjoy crime mysteries where they can try and figure out who did it before the show tells them. Shows like Murder She Wrote, Veronica Mars, Nancy Drew, Mrs Marple, etc...
A western is called a western because it is set in the american western frontier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "film maker" is right about one thing. You are both getting into the weeds. You're ignoring the forest for the trees.
When you appeal to emotion with some silly "won't someone think of the children" argument you lack substance and it's easy to dismiss the argument. I haven't seen "sound of freedom" but it honestly does not matter what percentage of illegals are sx trafficked because it's always going to be a fraction of the whole.
Also worth noting trafficking of minors doesn't just mean sx trafficking. It's weird that's where you both went with it.
At any rate this isn't a crime problem. It isn't a compassion problem either. The problem is a simple problem of physics and economics.
Imagine a glass under a facet because you want to get a drink. You turn the tap on and the water goes into the glass. But the glass is a physical structure so it's physically confined by how much water can go into the glass.The more you turn the tap on the faster the glass will fill up.
Now let's suppose the water coming from the tap is flowing straight from the source with no treatment. That water will have parasites, bacteria, dirt (silt), debris, minerals, etc in it. If you drink that water you won't remain healthy for very long.
So, we filter and treat the water. That ensures the water is healthy. If a couple of parasites or dirt or whatever get in, that isn't a big deal because the majority of the glass will be filled with clean water and your immune system can take care of such a small amount of pathogens. Scale, or pathogen load, matters.
A country is much like the glass. It has borders, so it is a physically confined space. It might be a large physically confined space, and your brain might have trouble really understanding the size, but it's physically confined all the same.
Only so much human activity can exist within any country. We need to understand that human activity is more than just city life. Humans need untouched natural lands to support life. We need agribusiness to feed people. We need healthy waterways and all the rest.
Far too often people who live in urban or suburban environments make the mistake of thinking a country can just become one giant high density city or suburban sprawl. But it can't, it needs all those other areas to support urban and suburban areas.
There is a hard limit on population and it's much smaller than many people believe.
In this analogy legal immigration is like the water, and society plus the economy are like you, taking a drink. The different kinds of visa are the filter.
For society and the economy to remain healthy, the immigration needs to be filtered "clean". So what does "clean" mean in this analogy? Well, if we take those trying to exploit others as the parasites, and the criminals as the bacteria, then those need to be removed obviously.
But just like naturally occurring water sources can have too much fluoride for safe consumption for example, so too can immigration have too many of a particular type of immigrant. We treat high fluoride water sources to bring fluoride down to safe levels and we're healthier for it. In that same way, the right amount of each time of migrant makes society and the economy stronger, but too many and it becomes toxic.
When Ellis Island was running, the USA was a 2nd wave economy. There was high demand for no skill and low skill labour. Today, the USA is a 5th wave economy. There isn't enough demand for no and low skill labour to hire those in that category who are natural born citizens, let alone bringing more in. And this is where the economic problem exists, when you bring in large numbers of no skill and low skill individuals with no demand it becomes toxic to the economy, and everyone up and down the economic scale suffers.
What the movie director is advocating for is turning the proverbial facet on full speed while bypassing all but the most rudimentary phases of the filtration system. That is a recipe for an unhealthy society and economy.
You have a confined space, fill it with the kinds of people who can in fact make it healthy. In a 5th wave economy that's individuals with in demand high skills or specialist skills or wealth or a history of successful entrepreneurial effort. These are the people who build the economy, create new jobs, and drive innovation.
It just so happens that's what existing laws are set up to filter for and have been for at least 3 decades. Because every generation prior to millennials and zoomers understood these concepts. At 55, your film maker friend should know better.
Immigration needs to reduce in flow, down to a trickle so infrastructure can keep up. But it also needs to be filtered adequately to target the people most necessary. A few genuine refugees seeking asylum now and then isn't a big problem in that situation. But vast floods of them will destroy the economy.
Remember, trying to solve poverty in developing countries through immigration to developed countries is a form of colonialism. Because only the strongest, only the most innovative, only the best of the nation, can make such trips. Those are the same people the country needs to actually develop. By poaching them, you hold the developing country back. It's not compassion, it's malice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course CoVID-19 effects people of all ages, and the symptoms are chronic in 30% of people 16 - 55. That is, the infection goes away so they don't die but they will forever feel nauseous, be short of breath, extreme lethargy. 1:3, unable to work ever again.
And of course, the Kent variant of CoVID-19 has been killing entire families, parents and children, just wiping the family out.
But let's not worry about those things because you feel mildly inconvenienced.
You are not automatically entitled to a good life. You are not automatically entitled to go to university. You are not automatically entitled to do whatever you want to do with your life.
Part of being an adult means you need to take responsibility for yourself, and that includes learning that sometimes you have to make hard decisions you don't want to have to make or give up on your shelve your goals for awhile.
If you cannot afford to live as a student right now, pull out of University, look for whatever work you can get and survive. We are being told by governments around the world and the WHO that these conditions will continue for years to come yet.
Next years vaccines for CoVID-19 are already in development. This won't be over until ~2025.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Few things to point out.
1. I'm not sure what the US experience with SMS is but I use SMS every day without any issue. It isn't as feature rich as IM, but it was never suppose to be. When we got SMS IM already existed for PC and was already popular. Don't forget ICQ (which is still a thing btw). SMS stands for Simple Message Service. Simple. For when you don't need something more complex. You also say it can't do read receipts with SMS, this is incorrect. It can absolutely be enabled in the settings as long as your carrier supports it.
2. I'm not sure how this video is exclusive, or how you're under the impression it's a Google thing. This is a telecommunications standard that has been in the pipeline for several years. Google, like Microsoft have just chosen to support it. Microsoft have already discussed last year they will support a rcs app on their mobile devices only. It's not coming to your windows PC.
3. Why don't google make an iMessage equivalent? Because there isn't a real world business case for an Android platform exclusive messaging system. The lure of Apple is exclusivity, so an exclusive messaging system works on their platform. It's the kind of thing apple users want. Android on the other hand isn't about exclusivity, it's about personalisation. Making it whatever you want it to be. That audience isn't down for proprietary systems. How do we know this? Because Hangouts (with an S) used to do exactly that. Send IM and SMS, real world app usage was poor. That's why we have Allo and Duo today.
4. I personally don't see the use case for RCS. Clearly the industry does if they're pursuing it but to me, people already fall into two camps and might switch between camps depending on their communication needs in that moment. People who just need to send a simple message to someone else and use the standard SMS to do it. And people who identify with an IM platform and talk to their friends there. RCS hopes to merge these experiences a bit but I just don't see people leaving FB Messenger, IG, Snapchat or whatever their IM is to send what is essentially a modern 2018 version of MMS. Will it get used? Sure, but I don't see it replacing IM. I think most people will still install their third party clients and uptake on the Android Chat app will be poor.
4. Why mention signal, an app with noted security issues and snub Threema, literally the most secure IM on earth. So secure it's used officially by top government officials and fortune 500 executives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matts5164 Mate, you're not pointing to direct harms and I'm not sure you grasp what that means. You're pointing to politically motivated ideology. This is a pragmatic questions, I'm not asking about opinions, your feelings or whether it's subjectively "fair". I'm asking for objective harms caused, none have been presented.
Here are some examples of scenarios with obvious direct harms. If practicing medicine is outlawed and all hospitals are closed, critically sick & injured people will die. If drug rehabilitation clinics are banned, there will be an increase in crime, ODs, suicides, mental health admissions and family break ups. If seat belts stop being mandatory in vehicles, there will be an immediate increase in fatal vehicle accidents.
You have not pointed to any direct harm caused by this law, it appears there are none.
As a matter of curriculum children are not taught about people with red hair, downs syndrome, Indian ethnicity or low income. It is unhelpful to single individuals out as if a single characteristic defines them. Homosexual children, are just children the same as all others. Who they happen to be attracted to is largely irrelevant, there's so much more to someone than the gender of who they might get a crush on.
Unless you're talking about genuine indoctrination, that is attempting to change how people think; then gay kids are going to have the same amount of friends and the same school experience regardless of this law.
Similarly other than for side show freak style spectacle or advancing a wrong stigma we don't see TV with families or main characters who are/have, little people, schizophrenia, morbid obesity, paraplegia, ASPD, rickets or Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome (progeria) either. TV is not supposed to mirror or represent reality, it's not intended to normalise who you are. It's mass market entertainment as escapism.
Your earlier rant about an anthropomorphic bee you parroted off twitter was poorly thought out. No one is actually going to have a romantic relationship with a bee. You understand that anthropomorphic animals are used in children's television to escape the confines of gender and sexuality, to make it relatable to everyone, so they can just tell a cute little children's story about believing in ones self and about finding a friend you can love.
Because 6 year olds aren't sitting around thinking about sexuality or sex, and maybe you should think about those things less. If it helps you get through the day somehow though, in real life all bee drones are female so you can think about that movie as a lesbian Beastophile if you like, but you'd be missing the point of the movie.
You're too busy flogging buzzwords, parroting nonsensical ideology and trying to "win" to stop and really think about what you've been saying. Too busy trying to contradict, in order to stop and think about how illogical your statements are. You have shown me you are willing to be intellectually dishonest, to make strawman arguments, to lose your integrity, to misuse language and to disregard reality. That has robbed you of credibility and revealed you as disingenuous. Therefore we are done.
1
-
1
-
I can appreciate that the Sikh community groups want to help. What has to be acknowledged is they are creating more risk.
From the footage alone it is clear they are not wearing proper PPE, not wearing their masks properly, not following cytotoxic protocols and not even using basic hygiene practices.
They are then moving around the city freely, going home and taking no precautions, there is the very high likelihood of further community spread of the virus from these charity workers. That means more sick people, more deaths that otherwise may have been avoided.
Further, by taking up oxygen cylinders they're stretching already depleted supplies even thinner. For every cylinder they have, it's one a hospital with the most critical patients does not have.
Compassion is great as long as it doesn't put others at risk or make things worse. What this group are doing doesn't pass that requirement. It's excellent that they want to help and I'm not trying to disparage them in any way.
What I'm saying is, they would be far more helpful by donating their o2 cylinders to a hospital and volunteering their time to help at the hospital. By being inside the hospital they gain access to PPE and knowledge of proper cytotoxic protocol which in turn reduces the risk their efforts pose to themselves and others.
If they have an actual building they can use, as opposed to the open air area shown in this footage, allowing a local hospital or medical clinic to set up field beds in that space would also be helpful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Come off it@UCtL2Lacs-MB5m32g9Elk3Jw you know the home secretary was using the word invasion by definition 3, don't be intellectually dishonest. Who do you honestly think you're fooling?
It's interesting that we've gone from 1,400,000 job vacancies for no skill migration to fill, down to a tenth of that. And of the 165K you're now talking about, you're underestimating the job skill levels. Then you want to talk about season jobs in agribusiness and out of desperation , you suggest subverting the skilled migration system and looking to the undeveloped and developing world to provide tertiary training for people whom speak little to no english and lack even a high school education (sometimes even lacking a primary school one). At tax payer expense no doubt.
Perhaps if you were seeking to train a group of people at tax payer expense in order to fill the skills shortage, one might start with citizens on the dole. Leave the developing world to ... develop. They'll never get anywhere if all their citizens leave.
Taxation from immigration only works so long as you keep immigration balanced and ensure you are highly selective of whom you allow in. Immigration is being used as a crutch to solve the aging population, but it's really a band aid solution that can't continue indefinitely.
Globally the writing is on the wall for not only mixed capitalism, but all economic systems currently deployed anywhere. We need a new system that takes reducing or stable population into account. Not just to solve immigration, but to solve bigger international problems such as climate change, population density and crime. To continue to grow as a species, 5th waves economics demands a new system.
In terms of selection of immigrants, an economic migrant attempting to make an illegal and irregular crossing has already demonstrated a weakness in character which makes them unsuitable/undesirable. That migrant has the option to apply through an existing, orderly system which evaluates them based on the value they provide to the economy, society and nation generally. Those whom would be denied under such application have already demonstrated they are not suitable.
Gordon, to describe anything I've said as emotional can only be taken as facetious in nature. What I have done is falsified the dishonest claims you have repeatedly flogged on others in this thread. Yes, many of those claims are ludicrous and false on their face. That makes them stupid things to say. The facts do not support you Gordon.
There is no genuine discussion if facts don't form it's basis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenwalker2924 Labour don't have a plan either, neither of the major parties do. But neither of the major parties need a plan or to look out for the voting public to get elected. Political corruption breeds when the public fail to be involved. Politicians aren't coming to YouTube comment sections to seek opinion.
The system is designed for an engaged public voting only for a local member, regularly talking to said local member about the things they care about and that member representing those ideas in parliament. Democracy under the Westminster system is an active process for all involved.
Instead most voting constituents don't even know who they voted for, let alone have ever spoken to their local member despite abundant opportunity to. The public aren't engaged. Heck many voters don't even actually understand the Westminster system and instead want to emulate yankvillain politics (for some reason). They're very different systems however, and the UK has nothing like a president. The UK head of state is the King, he got that role by birth and there is no voting involved in it. It isn't a democratic process.
Nonetheless, some people (the exact percentage is hard to say) vote based on party affiliation and nothing else. They think they're voting for a party they want in government or a PM. Neither of which the public vote on, but certainly the PM is nothing like a president they represent parliament on behalf of the King and their party, not the people. Who the PM is, is actually largely irrelevant to everyday people. Of course national news media play a role in this by misrepresenting the system so it fits inside a narrow time slot. Social media with it's constant talk of yankvillain politics is also involved. This only breeds division and corruption.
You have an awful lot more people however voting based on who is promising the greatest tax cuts, fee cuts, or otherwise the more money left in their pocket and not in government coffers. That's how this mess came about. Tax revenues have been eroded over the last 30 years. In 2000 under Labour Blair, the deficit began at £50 billion, over the prevailing 23 years that's ballooned out by ten times as tax receipts have dwindled. The budget really collapsed under CoVID however.
Making sure the middle class didn't lose their incomes (which would have been a worse economic prospect) really put the economy in trouble. It destroyed productivity, it grew national debt and it shook investors. There are other factors also involved but essentially that's where inflation is coming from.
The national debt is currently £2.5 Trillion, with a T. It's being added to at a rate of ~£1 Trillion per electoral term and there's no end to that in sight. That represents 39% of GDP, increasing by 16% of GDP over a term.
The treasury say the UK urgently have to raise income taxes and cut services by a significant amount. The uncomfortable truth is whomever win over the following two elections that's going to be what they'll have no choice but to do.
When NHS reform is talked about, what they're really saying is redesigning the system to covertly cut services so it remains affordable. Many axillary NHS services are going to have to be privatised with a user copay.
The work insurance scheme (pensions) also have to be reformed in the next two terms. You're hearing lots of talk about it because it's a major contributing factor to the budget deficit and why that deficit is so hard to close. The aging population has made pensions unaffordable. Pensions need to be privatised, to a user funded, fund managed investment account with special tax considerations similar to counties like Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Neither major party backs these union strikes because they both know that the nation can't afford to give them more and that trying to make that happen is just going to do those people out of a job altogether after the election.
The entire UK economy needs to be reformed and regeared towards international markets not just the EU. It's all doable and the other side is prosperous, but getting their is going to be painful.
1
-
By the logic of this piece we should be able to call up a central authority and find out about disciplinary actions, personal biases, organisational, personal and religious affiliations, addictions, etc of journalists, presenters, writers and producers of news, current affairs and investigative journalism.
Ie. The people who made this piece. Because pieces like this sway public opinion across large segments of the community, so that information can be argued is more important in this kind of scenario than for a teacher. Because I can learn you have things that invalidate what you have to say and not listen, but learning about a teacher in a public school doesn't change the teacher being in the classroom.
Is marketplace willing to commit now to making this information about it's employees easily accessible public knowledge?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did Lucia actually read the compas? Even the 3 page fact sheet? She didn't talk about ANY of the actions in the compas, she just keeps repeating the 3 overarching goals.
The compas is 3 pilars, and each pillar has 9 or more actions under it on how they plan to achieve the goals of each pilar. Many of the actions are about passing existing proposed regulations, or even just calling on existing legislated regulations.
Some of it is just keep doing what they're already doing, like they plan to reduce energy prices by cutting out coal, oil and gas, and electrifying everything with renewables on the same timeline as they already had. But that it will now somehow make energy cheaper because they say so, even though we know renewables do the opposite.
Some of the actions are "strategies" they're yet to come up with but they give them a working title that describes their purpose. There's just nothing there yet because they've only just been decided to be created.
Basically 90% of the compas is just "keep doing what we're doing and double down on it, things will definitely get better soon" and 10% of it, like a handful of actions, actually have something in them that's new and might help some businesses. But those handful of things are essentially protectionist policies that close out free trade and try to created a closed EU economy in place of world trade. So some businesses will really lose on that.
Overall this plan has zero chance of making the EU competitive against China and Yankville.
I reckon if you're so lazy at your reporter job as to not even read the document you're reporting on, you probably shouldn't keep that job.
Anyway, remember when China was poor and couldn't even feed its people? That's because it was socialist. It turned capitalist and now look at it. The USSR, totally improvished under socialism. Capitalist Russia post USSR? Going gang busters even under sanctions. DPRK, socialist paradise, people starving daily. No hope. Capitalist ROK, massive GDP.
But most telling. EU when it was committed to capitalism? Kept up with Yankville and was competitive. Now it's been poisoned by socialists, the EU is tanking. The answer to becoming competitive again in the EU is to abandon socialism and return to commitment to capitalism. Which also means a lot less centralisation in brussels and a lot more sovereignty for member states. That's how you get competitive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joexavier8870 The last census in ROK was 2021. They are held every 3 years, so there's two censuses between your data and current. 2018 & 2021. The Wikipedia page you are getting your information from, only lists 3rd party sources, such as topic bias books, it does not look to ROK census data. That is why you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia mate and should instead visit the authority, in this case KOSTAT, directly.
Secular countries have no national religion, that's what makes them secular. It has nothing to do with the percentage of people who are atheist. A secular country with 1% atheism still has no national religion. Indeed secularism has nothing to do with atheism, a secular institution is one that is disconnected from religion and leaves religion to the religious. It's a way of governance that doesn't give special treatment to any one particular religion.
Irreligious is not the same as atheism. Again, the census data includes belief systems such as Dangun that do not fall under organised religion but are still spiritual beliefs which can include a deity, in the same category as atheism.
There is no category only for atheism in the ROK census.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrekoniger3020 "crime against humanity" is not a charge. It provides a top of category offence description. Without being sealed it might say something like "negligent homicide"
There are exceptions. For example, it does not display every traffic offence and parking ticket.
It only displays offences of a relevant gravity. Where a conviction has been sealed, such as with a gag order, only a magistrate or judge can grant access to that content. A police check can only report what is available to the system. So the system might display "sealed conviction" or it might say "category B offence".
So the document might say "category B offence" or if it says "sealed" the reporting officer can just skip the offence and write "no reportable offences" because they don't have any information about how or why the offence was sealed, and what the offence is.
In the latter scenario there is no barrier to employment with children (or the government). In the former scenario, because you're only getting a category description you're given an opportunity to explain yourself by the employer. As long as you can cone up with a halfway believable lie to minimise your conviction you have no problem.
That's the entire point of sealing a conviction and gag orders.
A document does not have to be public domain to be relevant to a gag order btw. Where one is compelled to answer a question that would reveal information covered by a gag order, such as in a job interview, and whereby the requesting party (such as an interviewer) has not been authorised to view such material by the court or undertaken a commitment to be bound by the terms of the gag order, the entity shall not be so compelled.
That is to say, if I show you a document with information covered by a gag order on it, there's nothing stopping you repeating that information. For that reason records are sealed until a gag order expires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, I got to 8:12 and you're still talking about pure EV cars and not mentioning hydrogen powered EV which is already here and Ford, Toyota, GM, BMW, Chrysler, Kia and Nissan have all said are their future mainline vehicles.
Pure EV was only ever a transition technology, it was never intended to be 80% mainstream. That's what hydrogen powered vehicles are for.
They have electric motors the same as your pure EV does, but instead of needing to be charged they take the power from hydrogen reactions and convert it into electricity.
That means
1. Refueling works identical to refueling your petrol or diesel vehicle. They take the same amount of time to refuel as petrol vehicles do and get better milage than petrol
2. The existing petrol stations can be easily converted into hydrogen refueling stations. As long as they have no lesks, the existing petrol tanks don't need any adjustments.
Hydrogen powered vehicles solve all of the problems that hold people back from buying EV, and do so whilst using existing infrastructure. 120 petrol stations in the USA and 60 in Canada have already converted into hydrogen refueling stations
They make everything in this video, at least everything up until I stopped watching at 8:12 completely irrelevant, baseless speculation not grounded in what the industry has already said about the direction it's going in.
Edit: Before anyone says anything about environmentalism, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and the chemical reactions taking place in hydrogen powered vehicles produce only breathable oxygen and water.
Also worth mentioning that actress Natalie Portman invented one of the methods being used to produce hydrogen commercially for vehicles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PsychedelicGoo No, not really. All companies, including ones run by government, seek to make profit. Royal Mail. Post Office Ltd, BBC, CH4 (who we're commenting on right now), NNL, etc are all state owned companies and they all seek to make a profit. The government already own and operate many of the existing rail lines, and they do so for profit. Being state owned doesn't mean an entity is non-profit at all. So that first premise is nonsense.
Profit isn't made by cutting services, making things worse or jacking up prices. That's not at all competitive and no commercial entity operates that way hoping to make profit. You make profit by remaining competitive on prices and improving the efficiency of services. Competitive on prices doesn't mean they stay at the same level for 28 years though.
Prices go up. Yes, they have competition because they aren't just competing against trains. They're competing against all methods of transport between the points on the line. Buses, taxis, ubers, private vehicles, whatever else. They have to be price competitive with these to keep customers choosing the rail service or they'll go elsewhere. Clearly they do choose the rail network and find it priced competitively, otherwise they'd be taking other means of commuting.
In terms of your final premise it really depends on what "treat staff well" means. This same company that's just lost it's franchise on the northern line also run GWR and are doing exceptionally well. None of these service problems because it's a different union. The staff are happy with what they have, because it's a different union and thus different perspective. Both sets of staff are paid the same, just the GWR set don't have unreasonable demands and want to work with the railway to make the line function. The northern line folks don't.
So again, the problem is the union. If you took away this union and got workers back to working properly instead of taking the mick things would operate significantly better.
But the union can't be magicked away, and the employees are being unreasonable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the real reason, but you aren't going to like it. Israel is NOT holding the reins on this, it would be simplier if they were because then someone could just ban AIPAC and things would get better.
The UK, specifically the monarch, controls US foreign policy and defence. This has been losely in place since 1913 and was strengthened to its current degree 30 years later in 1943. He controls your defence budget. He controls your foreign policy. He controls where you send troops and when. This is written in black and white across a handful of treaties such as the five eyes agreement.
Israel is a colonial outpost for the monarchy. The monarch is still trying to complete the multigeneration project to capture the Middle East.
Israel is not a democracy. It never was. It has always been an outpost, so the people there have no real rights. Remember, by Israeli census results 74% of Israelis self identify as non-religious. The idea that it's a Jewish state is laughable. The few actual Jews that are in Israel are persecuted, same as the Christians.
It the state exists solely to expand the British empire, the real empire you serve. You can criticse Israel, if you couldn't we wouldn't be able to have this conversation, nor would this video be allowed to exist. You just can't criticise it in a way that might actually lead to demands to stop funding the project or supplying weapons.
The north atlanic treaty if you ever bother to read the thing, grants military control over all members to Britain, and Britain appoints the US as the commander. AKA, the US does the bidding of the monarch and the monarch doesn't have to cop any criticism for it nor fund it. That was the entire point of the treaty. To stop Britain having to fund its wars or send troops. As senior brits call it, their purse and their sword.
Israelis couldn't topple the project if they wanted to. They're just labour. People in the US can topple the project, so there are limits. People in the UK can REALLY topple the project, so they aren't allowed to criticise israel at all. Do you understand? You're serving a King in a foreign land. That's who your brothers, sons and fathers are dying for. Charles, and his mother before him. They have this game they play were they use puppets to get what they want in order to pretend they don't interfere. But it's all through them. All of it. None of it happens without their ok.
1
-
1
-
@jimjimson2936 I don't know where to even start with your antisemitic stupidity. Israel is not "the Jews", zionism is not "the Jews". Please don't be antisemitic. No, as much as the zionists want to claim otherwise the stolen holy land is not "the home of the Jews" and making such a suggestion is deeply antisemitic and hurtful.
Shelly was being interviewed for CH4, by a CH4 correspondent. She is addressing a British reporter. She has been addressing foreign reporters since 9 October, she's done dozens of interviews over the last 5 weeks. Go listen to them.
Every interview is the same. Her 21 year old son was involved in the sick party overlooking the largest open air prison on earth. All she talks about is how horrible Hamas are for resisting their occupation and how hurt she feels.
She has never called for a ceasefire, indeed there are interviews such as with CNN where she explicitly asks for the attacks on Gaza to continue until her son is returned. Not all of the Israeli hostages mind you, just specifically her adult child.
She doesn't talk about releasing the 900 Palestinian hostages, ever. She doesn't talk about the plight of Palestinians, ever. She doesn't care about those things, she is singularly focused on getting her son back, on hating an occupied people struggling for their freedom and does not care who has to suffer in the process.
Again, if Palestinian mother's didn't feel the same or worse pain on a daily basis she would never be in this position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are some serious problems with this interview. Boycotts themselves can only do so much. Yes, if you get enough of a private companies key demographic involved in a boycott they can cause a company to change course. But they can also be used as marketing strategies by the companies themselves, particularly when a single company owns the two major competing brands in a product segment, unilever and nestle are famous for playing their own brands off against each other on twitter to cause boycotters to buy their other brand, and non-boycotters to buy more of the brand being boycotted.
The point is, boycotting alone will have little actual impact on Israel. It's the other two parts of BDS, devestment and sanctions, that will have meaningful impact.
To get those things to happen you need to have conversations with people in a position to make them happen. They can't be expected to just happen to stumble across a cause and support it or to magically know. To then act surprised when the representative in Arkansas said no one came to tell him the opposite opinion so he voted for it is a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. To then try to characterise that as him not doing his job or not representing all of his constituents is at best misinformation based in ignorance to how the system works, and at worse deliberate disinformation.
A representative is not elected to represent everyone in the country, particularly if they're in the state legislature. They're elected to represent the people in their electorate, ward, etc. That's a significantly smaller group of people all of whom have the ability to talk to their representative and press their views on an issue. Not every constituent will care about every issue or every bill. When an issue or bill does interest you, it's your responsibility/duty as a citizen to contact your representatives to make your voice heard. The representative then takes all the voices and arguments on an issue and makes a decision on how to vote.
Companies aren't paying billions to lobby every year if it doesn't work. Often lobbyists get their way because they're the only voice on an issye. If you're fulfilling your civic duty you should be writing to your state and federal representatives about once a week to once a fortnight to express opinions on various things relevant to the times. If you go to a protest, you also need to contact the relevant representatives to express those views because representatives can't make decisions based on protests, they need you to actually contact them.
The first amendment does not extend in to work. It has long been held that while you are on someone elses time they can place conditions on your employment. Similarly, you can't claim the contractor doesn't have the right to be selective of their contractees. Imagine you had a painter to come paint your house. You find out that painter goes around spouting pro-israel lies. Do you still want to hire the painter? Would you like the right to be able to ask the painter to not do that while they're painting your home? Would you feel comfortable being publicly associated with that painter? Should that painter be allowed to stand on your front lawn preaching zionist talking points whilst you're paying him, and have that as a legally protected right?
The clause doesn't give them a right to force you into buying particular products/services. They can't meaningfully prevent a contractee from boycotting nor are they actually attempting to. What they ARE saying is, you can't tell the whole world about it. You won't actively try to recruit people into the cause and you want make public statements about it for the duration of your contract. That's not actually all that unusual, all public servants have similar clauses that cover the full gambit of political matters.
Going against the system isn't supposed to be easy. It isn't supposed to be without sacrifice. It's not 10 likes on this post will change the world. You might become bankrupt, imprisoned, lose your liberty, be physically injured or even be fatally so, in support of a cause. That's what it actually means to support a cause in a meaningful way. You might lose your job, you might miss out on contracts or other opportunities, that's what having principles means. You have to get off the bus and walk. Deal with it, or don't get involved. Either way stop complaining that having principles is hard. It's supposed to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol. This entire thread is a hilarious dumpster fire. Two groups of people neither of which have any clue what they're talking about, talking nonsense at each other.
Squatting is covered under adverse possession, sec 16.025 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code which came into effect September 1, 1985 under a republican government.
The concept, which dates back to ancient rome, is a way of dealing with city blight. Adverse possession means if you find an abandoned home and meet particular criteria you can become the owner of the home after a set period of time depending on which criteria you meet (somewhere between 3-10 years).
The idea is that people who abandon a property and don't maintain it, probably shouldn't continue ownership if someone else is willing to maintain it, pay taxes, etc. The idea works much better in smaller populations.
This particular case being reported did not involve a squatter. It involved someone trespassing with a fake document. Possession of the fake document is itself a criminal offence.
You are all on the internet, a resource with the collective knowledge of all humanity. Why on earth are any of you speculating? Open your browser and find out before you comment if you don't know. Seriously, what a bunch of clowns 🤡🤣
PS. To whoever it was that claimed the pilgrims came over in mediaeval times, they ended some 3 centuries before the pilgrims. The pilgrims had as much in common with mediaeval times as we do. 🤦🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Influence: The power to affect or change someone or something without directly forcing them
It seems to me that this conversation was really just about who can change people's minds the most, and what they want to change those people's minds too.
I don't know about you, but I don't want my journalists to come with any influence, regardless of whether they're independent or work for a large company.
I want my journalists to tell me ALL of the FACTS they can find, in as impartial and an objective manner as they can muster, and then leave it up to ME the viewer, the reader, the listener, the consumer, to make up MY OWN MIND without influence from anyone else. Then I want to be able to discuss those things with the people actually in my life who I care about, and see what they have to say, so I can find the nuance and the truth and the varied perspectives.
Do you know whose personal perspectives I don't care about? The journalists. The pundits. The reporters. The singers. The song writers. The actors. The mega corp CEOs. These are not people in my life, they aren't people who care about me and my interests. So when those people try to pedal influence over me, it's for THEIR benefit, not mine.
The kinds of people who boast about their influence, at no different than the cable news people, or the people who want to own you. They are saying it out loud, they want to influence you, that's control. They want to control you. They're boasting about how many people they can control, and how much or the narrative they can control. It's sick, and ego driven. It's the kind of behaviour people who want attention and are empty inside do.
I hope you will all wake up and stop allowing people in any job removed from your life influence you, or those you love. There's no freedom without free speech, but there's no free speech without free thought. And if you're being controlled and influenced in how to think, you've lost your free speech and general freedom right along with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unionjackjackson4352 lol. 🤦♂️ Rights are defined and granted by laws. Telling me you have xyz right is meaningless unless the government agrees and enforces it. If a government repeals or refuses to enforce a right, you don't have it. Period. Saying otherwise is a waste of breath. For example, if you hold up the right to say what you want and the government decide to criminalise what you have to say, tada no more right. Equally, if you decide you have a right to protest and the government decide you aren't doing it peacefully or they just don't like your cause, tada no more right.
If you are now talking about the UDHR, you're in even worse luck. UN declarations, conventions and treaties only apply if ratified AND ENFORCED domestically. They are voluntary. Article 1 of the UN Charter, all members remain sovereign and their sovereign rights supersede the UN. The UDHR isn't even signed by every country, let alone ratified by them which only goes to further my point. It's only signed by 103 countries, that means 46% of the UNGA aren't even signatories to the UDHR let alone the other 22 countries not members of the UN.
Of the 103 signatories, it is only ratified by 64%. In other words, the rights of the UDHR do not apply to the majority of countries in the world. Repealing rights granted under the UDHR in the UK is as simple as repealing local ratification, instructing police and government bodies to not enforce them or the King waving his hand and making it so.
Absolutely nothing prevents you losing those rights, and it never has. They are simply things a government grants their citizens in order to facilitate citizen responsibilities, facilitate the economy and allow society to operate cohesively.
Monarchy (N)
1. Government by a monarch.
🤣🤣🤦♂️
A government is any individual, family, group or body with the authority to administer public policy, control the state and generally...govern. It is by extension any official agent, group or body authorised to administer, adjudicate, enforce or act matters on behalf of primary government.
The crown is the head of state. That is, the King is to the UK (and those members of the commonwealth still in the monarchy) what a president is to the US or France only with infinitely more power. The crown is sovereign, that is legally there is no difference between the King and the UK. He can as it stands, do literally anything he wants. He is immune to all laws, and parliament can not act against the crown because it derives its authority to act directly from the crown and can not do anything without his consent.
You can feebly shift the goal posts however you like, at the end of the day rights aren't a real thing. They're concepts granted by governments and that's the same regardless of where in the world you live. You only have the power those with actual power say you can have, and only so long as they allow it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you see how Australia came in second on the charts at every turn? Here's how Australia, a country comparable to the USA in physical size and values make our system (also called Medicare) work such that it delivers best outcomes;
The department of human services Medicare office decide what they are willing to pay for a particular diagnostic, procedure, surgery, etc. This creates the Medicare schedule at a federal level. States provide the hospitals and bill Medicare for all of their billable items at the scheduled rate. This ensures if you need emergency care or surgery you can get it. However on a day to day basis this is not the primary way Medicare is accessed. Private doctors, specialists and diagnostic practitioners bill Medicare directly at the scheduled rate for the patients they see, this process is called Bulk Billing, or if they want to charge more than the Medicare schedule they bill the patient the difference. So, say you see a GP. Medicare currently has their billing rate at $180/15 minutes, if the practice is happy with that rate the patient has no out of pocket fee for seeing the doctor, at all. These doctors advertise themselves as bulk bill doctors and are where most Australians want to go. If a given GP isn't happy with the schedule, say they think they should be paid $220/15 minute appointment, the patient pays just $40 out of pocket.
Same for blood tests, x-rays, opticians, mental health services, specialists, etc. Dental is covered for children 17 and under, and medications can be placed on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) schedule where the medication is heavily subsidised by the federal government to an affordable amount. For example a cancer drug that might cost $4000 out of pocket to the patient in the USA would cost $50 to the patient in Australia with the government picking up the tab for the remaining $3950. People on social security have further benefits making their out of pocket contribution in the same scenario never more than $5.
Don't like the public system in Australia? That's ok, we don't discriminate against private care, in fact we actively subsidise it because patients in private care cost the government less freeing up money to improve public services care. Australians purchase private health insurance themselves the same they would any other financial product. We do not purchase through an employer, employers actively have to pay more tax if they provide health insurance to employees. It's something the consumer decides to do themselves at their own expense.
Weirdly in addition to private health insurance covering private hospitals, optical, allied health, etc, you can also present to a PUBLIC hospital with private health insurance and pay privately. Because you're paying more the public hospital lets you skip the queue. This gives an incentive for people who can purchase private health insurance to do so, further subsidising the overall system.
Wait times for GPs are not high here, there are LOTS of doctors. In fact within walking distance of my house there are no less than 7 GP practices each with multiple doctors inside them. I can get a GP appointment within the hour any day of the week. But I don't even have to leave my house if I don't want to, home visit GPs are plentiful and can be with you within 2 hours of your call. No out of pocket expense involved, completely bulk billed. Need to see a specialist but they're in another state or you live remote/rural? No problem, telehealth services are bulk billed giving you access to the best care no matter where you are. Heck, now days your surgeon doesn't even have to be in the same hospital as you, they can be in their rooms and remote control robotic arms. Bulk billed of course.
Our system isn't perfect, most Australians would like dental included and more funding for mental health services with high demand to increase capacity. But overall as the figures here show, our system does very well. Given how comparable our countries are the US should look hard at our system and how we achieve such fantastic outcomes while spending significantly less than the USA or Canada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackspring7709 Close.
It was actually more than 100K Ukrainian troops this year. Last year it was 53K Ukrainian troops. But Ukrainian troops have been engaging in trench warfare in the Donbas for the full 8 years.
The coup was not originally anything to do with yankville. Yankville like the other usual suspects in Europe originally weren't overly interested in the coup attempts in Ukraine. The coup was bankrolled by Ukrainian organised crime. The west did send delegations though to try to seek peace.
Biden, then VP, headed the yankville delegation, originally and this is widely reported in early 2014, yankville did not support the coup. After Biden met with members of Ukrainian organised crime and was given a 25% stake in their oil and gas company, yankville suddenly supported the coup.
There is a sudden and distinct change in how the media reported the coup.
There are large oil and gas deposits under the towns in the Donbas. Trillions of dollars worth, that's what they're after. Biden has a personal financial stake.
The first Ukrainian build up, which occurred last year, happened just 7 weeks after Biden took office as president. The stand off paused last year due to the change in seasons making military action in the region difficult.
This time yankville escalated and escalated until Russia had no other choice. They baited Russia, just like they're trying to bait China now. It's how yankville compete.
But at the end of April the season will change and the military action will be difficult to proceed. So Russia has only a few more weeks left to reach their military goals.
Russia is far from innocent in this whole thing, but they're also nothing like we're being told. And ultimately everyone seems to forget the genuinely innocent civilians in what is now donetsk and luhansk who just want to live safe, peaceful lives in their homes without their government (Ukraine) shooting at them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I came to you @martinmuller3244 and not only paid you to draw a picture, but purchased a house for you to live in, a mountain of sketch books, pencils and art supplies far beyond what you need to complete the project... Who owns the picture you draw?
Would it be reasonable for you to insist on holding a copyright over the drawing and asking me to pay you more to licence it from you? Would it be reasonable for you to turn additional profits from that drawing?
Would it be reasonable for you to ask a copy shop to print copies of your drawing for me, and the copy shop to demand to have a say in how the drawing is used?
Governments funded the development of these vaccines at every stage. They funded additional resources, buildings, equipment, machinery that can be used in other applications. A patent waiver on these vaccines is not unreasonable, because that was innovation for hire.
Indeed, for many of these vaccines the actual innovation took place at a university who then gave the patent to a pharmaceutical company for free in good will, such that it could be manufactured and distributed at scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sebastians.b.2776 This news report did not list the species of the many different cacti being transported, nor did it state they are protected species. In fact, the direct opposite which was one of the points they were trying to make. That they wanted them listed as protected.
All countries have protected species laws but they only apply to species that are actually listed as protected. Everything about this directs us to conclude they are in fact not protected.
Unprotected public land is public land, the things inside the land are owned by no one. That's what public land means. No one owns it, it's for everyone's free use. Government may administrator land but that isn't ownership.
Protected public land is owned by no one either but is protected by law. That's the point of it. If it worked the way you're trying to suggest there would be no need for national parks because all public land would be national parks. They aren't, and whilst you may feel an affinity for the land what you are suggesting isn't how it works legally on unprotected public land.
There in nothing in the story that would give cause to believe they are being taken out of a national park.
Customs agents are allowing these through no problems, even when told where the plants were taken from. That was explicit in the story
That tells us there is at minimum no enforced law on the books regarding transportation of plants from public land overseas, or (more likely) that there is no such law on the books at all. The latter appears to be what the interviewees wanted to occur.
Poaching mean
(n) Illegal procurement of protected wildlife such as fish, game, logging, or plant collecting
As we have established that they aren't protected species, and there isn't anything illegal taking place it isn't poaching. It's removal of plants from public land.
This really seems like a non-issue
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a false narrative. The USA was STOLEN by force from the mesoamerican inhabitants by the religious extremists, social outcasts, terrorists and criminals of Europe. All the people who were too much for Europe, took a boat across the Atlantic and stole land from mesoamericans.
Something that still isn't adequately acknowledged. It's certainly something that deserves much more social awareness than historic slavery.
The country then built itself up by kidnapping people from around the world and forcing them into labour. I'm not just talking about African slavery here. Every single technological leap that has ever occurred inside the united states has a direct result of forced labour or stolen research.
For example, one well known example is after WW2 thousands of German scientists were kidnapped from Germany and told they could either work for the USA and share their technologies or be executed for war crimes.
The current big tech boom in silicon valley is fueled by Chinese and Indian technologies. Even the freaking lightbulb was stolen soviet technology.
From the 1960s, unhappy with just kidnapping people the USA started creating debt traps for countries around the world making them beholden to the USA and robbing them of a right to true democracy or acting out of self interest. That's worse than colonialism, because it's done in shady backrooms out of sight.
When countries try to claim back their sovereignty, they face threats, intimidation and sabre rattling from the USA. Countries like south korea whom has wanted to make amends with north korea and gain sovereignty over their military for decades now, but the USA won't allow it. There's too much at stake for the USA in keeping the DPRK isolated and holding control over a regional military force so close to Russia and China.
Countries all across Europe and the South Pacific where the USA has forced having their own military bases and ports. The state broadcaster for Germany, DW, is a US propaganda mouth piece parroting pro USA lies often to the detriment of Germany itself.
Japan has not been allowed to have it's own military force for anything but a small defensive force since the end of WW2 under threat of the USA dropping more bombs on them. It was only months ago after they joined the quad and as a direct benefit to the USA that this has changed and they have now announced they plan to create their own offensive military force.
Look at Philippines. It succeeded in pulling away from US influence under Rodrigo Duterte. Because of that, they managed to turn their country into one of the least safe narco countries in the world, into one of the safest with drug crime now under 5%. However, that caused the US to go on a campaign against the Philippines until Duterte was removed from office and their recent realignment with US influence.
All of the main apparent "bad guys" around the world the US claims, are in reality simply countries that do not want to be influenced by the USA.
All of the negative culture inside the USA, all of the glorification of crime, all of the crimes and trauma hiding behind religious expression, all of the kidnapping, the theft, the forced influence and debt traps, they all stem back to the reality the USA was founded by the worst extremists in Europe, people so extreme that they were considered criminals in Europe.
Also don't forget that Britain first used the USA as a penal colony dumping 50K convicts. That's 4x as many as they ever dumped in Australia. 80% of all British convicts transported overseas were political prisoners in prison for plotting or attempting to overthrow the government/monarchy, or inciting that others do so. It's where the free speech amendment comes from.
Let's also not forget that the African slave trade has it's roots in the regional justice system. Criminals who committed specific crimes were made slaves as punishment. That's where the African slave traders got them, that's what fed the European and US demand for slaves from Africa.
Criminality and extremism is in the blood of many people in the USA. That's the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JootjeJ What country is "your country"? If it's a Nordic country you're comparing apples and oranges. Whole countries with populations <11M spread over an area instead of centralised in those numbers, and where the population is largely ethnically and culturally homogeneous, and where eugenics were practiced, have very different factors at play than a highly diverse city like London whose population alone is almost the same as Sweden. When you have that many people centralised in close proximity things change. There are very different factors at play, that has to do mostly with the population size and distribution.
A stop and search is miles away from a strip search. Stop and searches don't even necessarily involve physical contact. If a police officer asks to look in your bag because you're suspected of shop lifting for example, that's a stop and search.
If they ask to test the liquid in your bottle at an organised event because they suspect you of smuggling alcohol in, that's a stop and search. I
f they pull you over for speeding or driving erratically and during the course of that traffic stop they look inside your vehicle for alcohol or drugs be it with your consent or only through probable cause, that too is stop and search.
If you get pulled to the side at an airport and asked to open your bag or swab it for whatever, that too is a stop and search and contributes to the bulk of that 88K figure.
Strip searches are an entirely different thing. There are more than one type of strip search, and each type has it's own limitations. A full strip search involving all parts of the body is called an MPS and is reserved for processing inmates to ensure they aren't trying to smuggle anything be it a weapon or other contraband.
Another kind of strip search involves touching of a specific area of the body. Say their leg or their arm, to feel for something the officer has a reasonable expectation is there. This is the kind of search that might be conducted if you're suspected of hiding goods on your person to shop lift or if you're suspected of trying to smuggle something at an airport. Removal of clothing isn't usual in this kind of search however because physical contact is made it is in the same category as strip searches.
Both of the above types are included in the 12K figure used in this report.
The kind of strip search covered in this report is reserved for persons whom are under arrested, in custody and where the watch house staff responsibly suspect the individual may have contraband, have hidden stolen goods on their person or pose a risk to themselves or others.
That's why I said there's more to the story than this woman is stating. Police can not strip search you for giving a child legal advice. That's illegal. Something more had to happen causing her to be arrested, and then her behaviour whilst in custody had to give rise to cause for such a search. Both of those things had to happen for that search to take place. This isn't something police can do to just anyone on the street, nor is it something they can do to everyone they arrest.
The reality is very different to the impression this report gives. This report is trying very hard to pretend women are sexually victimised by police using cherry picked data, refusing to put said data into context with other groups, and using colourful, inflammatory language throughout. Nothing sexual is taking place. Nothing untoward is taking place. But the Wayne Couzens and David Carrick cases got lots of public interest, so they're doing the typical tabloids thing and milking it for all it's worth. That's why half this report is talking about those cases and trying desperately to link something to them that holds no relevance at all.
Channel 4 are doing the community a great disservice. It would be one thing if they were privately owned, but they're a public broadcaster and should have a higher editorial standard than they have as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arthurmark2013 A refugee has absolutely zero to do with the amount of money in their bank account. Someone moving for economic reasons is an economic migrant. We aren't talking about economic migrants.
A refugee is someone fleeing war, violence, persecution or conflict. The convention on refugees defines a refugee as
“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
You can be a billionaire and still be a refugee. Edward Snowden, a man with significant financial resources is a great example of a refugee. He felt persecution for being a government whistle blower. Alexi Navalny also a refugee, one who fled directly to Germany. He's a millionaire and was granted asylum. Being a refugee has nothing to do with wealth.
With that said, one would hope if you sold everything you own and withdrew every cent you have, that'd you'd be able to pull together €99 for a plan ticket from Turkey to Belarus.
There's plenty who fly directly to Germany.
Again, the majority are coming on foot through Ukraine and Belarus. There's a few who can afford a plane ticket from their life savings but most are walking. Those who have flown, walk from the airport to the border.
You're the one who actually has no clue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monro2447 ROFLMAO.
That's some nice EU propaganda you've got there. I know you didn't make it up all on your own. Someone's been watching a bit too much DW.
You want a dose of truth and reality, ok.
You're right not all 215 countries are equal, I never said otherwise. I said the majority don't support Poland. Of the G20, just 4 support Poland. Of the G7 just 2 support Poland. No matter what way you slice it the majority do not support Poland. Period.
Yes, a number of countries have come out and explicitly condemned Poland and the EU over the handling of this crisis.
Human rights isn't a virtue signal, when used in the context of geopolitical negotiation or communication human rights is a weapon. When used in the context of economic deals, human rights is a means of coercion.
If you think China has anything whatsoever to lose by destroying the EU on human rights you're out of your mind. If you think any trade deals with China are at risk without China's say so, then you are completely clueless. China own the global supply chain of essentially every industry. There's no industries, even domestic industries, that aren't touched in some way by China.
The reason yankville wanted to make clear they didn't want a cold war with China is because they know they've already lost. China already owns us all. Destroying the EU on human rights helps China by forcing the EU to step back from sanctions and taking the human rights issues the EU has with China off the table.
That's why China has already publicly started on at the EU about human rights. China can only win from it.
You've also far overstated China's problems. Xi isn't going to let the Chinese economy crumble, that would end him. He's in it for life. Not to mention, the Chinese economy crumbling would make the 2008 GFC look like a walk in the park. Picture Lebanon, everywhere with runaway global hyperinflation.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this, but it sure is helping to show your true colours. The Syrian war is a war started and perpetuated by yankville and the EU. Syrians are by definition all automatic refugees. It's Europe's and Yankvilles mess to clean up, you ruined their country you owe them.
Moreover Merkel invited them to Germany. That invite can't be revoked very easily, you have to wait a few decades.
No one is taking over your country. No one is introducing Sharia to Europe. Those are pathetic, empty nonsense arguments to make.
Come back when you're able to form an actual rational argument that doesn't rest on your racism and xenophobia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edix1673 Roflmao. Yeah, that isn't how any of that works. These are defined by the UDHR in 1948, and expanded by the refugee convention 3 years later in 1951. Both are ratified in whole by the UK. Only those countries whom are ratified signatories are subject.
An asylum seeker is a person who invokes their rights under the convention. To qualify you must be either
1. Fleeing war in your source country, where the war directly impacts your safety.
2. Be facing one or more of a list of specific kinds of persecution by the government, or other authority in the source country for a trait protected by the UDHR.
Asylum seeker is a legal term and status. One becomes an asylum seeker upon entry to their host country and submitting an asylum claim. They remain an asylum seeker until such time as their application has been approved by the host country.
Refugee is likewise a legal term and status. ONLY upon approval of an asylum claim does an asylum seeker become a refugee. Refugee status is ONLY applicable in their approved host country. Should a refugee leave their host country and seek asylum in a third country for any reason they return to asylum seeker status.
Where an irregular border crossing does not involve an asylum claim, or where an asylum claim is not approved, that individual has committed a crime and is eligible to be deported.
Importantly, the UDHR nor the refugee convention provide protection for poverty. Indeed both documents are explicit that poverty is not cause for asylum.
The ECHR, which the UK is a signatory to; provides other reasons for leave to stay. A person seeking leave to stay under the ECHR is neither an asylum seeker nor a refugee. Those are terms exclusive to claims under the UDHR clause 14. The ECHR discusses immigration on compassionate grounds, such as where an asylum claim has been refused yet it has taken so long to decide that the claimant has set down roots in the community as defined through criteria by the ECHR. This clause is a loophole that has been exploited across all of its signatories for the last few decades. All such signatories are cracking down on it now because too many people from undeveloped and developing countries are getting leave to stay. That is the point of keeping claimants on a barge for example, they can never become part of the community.
Importantly the ECHR is also explicit that poverty is NOT protected by any of it's compassionate immigration clauses.
There are many reasons why, but not least of which is because it's just another form of colonialism by developed countries like the UK against developing countries like the source countries the illegal economic migrants are coming from. Also because it does things like create high inflation, housing crisis', and overburdened services with unsustainable funding requirements.
1
-
@Jfalways What aren't the home office doing exactly? There are many more people showing up on the border than in previous years. Each one of whom has to be processed to the same standard.
If I show up at your house and say I'm from where ever, please help me I'm going to be murdered, but have no documentation how do you verify my story? What if more and more people started showing up at your doorstep claiming the same without documentation. What if it was a legal requirement for you to house me and the many other people who turned up until you could demonstrate factually that no one was trying to murder us. But you can't make us permanent in your house until you know we aren't lying. Then there's the problem of there no being enough room for us all. What steps would you take? How long do you think it might take to find that information?
I think the home office do a wonderful job with the bad situation they're faced with. We're talking about people who turn up without as much as basic ID. Their identities have to be verified. Their stories have to be verified. The immediate risk of death has to be verified and assessed. Their criminal past has to be verified and assessed, the UDHR is clear that criminals, war criminals and people fleeing reasonable prosecution should never be granted asylum. How do you achieve all that without documentation? That's why it takes so long. These cases involve diplomatic relations, even the intelligence services sometimes.
Labour always talk about speeding things up in the home office when in opposition, but never deliver that when in office. Because there is no switch you can just flick to make the process faster. It takes as long as it takes. By the official figures 81% are granted leave to stay, but the make up of that statistic is concerning. Only 13% are found to be genuine asylum seekers, the remainder are illegal economic migrants granted leave to stay on humanitarian grounds under the ECHR. It takes so long to process their claims they develop community roots and must be allowed to stay even though their asylum application is denied.
The solution to this problem is not found in the speed of processing at the home office. The solution is to deter illegal economic migrants from coming in the first place. That's the point of the barges. It's the point of offshore processing (such as the Rwanda policy). Deterring illegal economic migrants is the difference between the home office dealing with just 5K claims a year, verse 45K+ claims a year.
Greece and Poland shoot at them. Processing them in a third, safe neutral country is quite humane by comparison.
1
-
1
-
The world won't move to renewables in as meaningful a way as you hope within that timescale regardless of what a politician might tell you in a speech today. They won't be in charge to pass the policy that matters, and they know it.
The amount of green washing going on right now is insane. Net zero doesn't mean zero actual (gross) emissions, it means zero emissions on paper after buying emissions credits from other countries (net).
Since announcing net zero Germany has increased gross emissions. Reductions are only on paper, it's a political slight of hand. Actually reducing emissions to zero would destroy the economy.
Similarly, transitioning to 100% renewables over 2 decades would fail to meet supply, wouldn't have all of the infrastructure built in that time scale, would crumble the economy and perhaps most importantly doesn't actually have as big an impact on climate change as you'd hope.
Natural gas is a transitional tech, as in a real world 30-50 year transition, potentially longer. Transitional tech is used when you know you want to go in a particular direction but that tech isn't available yet, so you need something to fill the void and what you had before is no longer viable. It's a delay.
Battery EV is another example of a transitional tech. It's about as good for the environment as a nuclear meltdown but was useful tech while commercial grade H-FCEV at scale was developed and to some short term extent remains useful while it's infrastructure is deployed.
Renewables will take significant R&D, build time, training and financial investment to get to 24/7 base load under a centralised infrastructure model. That model isn't about to change. All of that, and we still cause enormous damage to the environment, and fail to dent climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a ridiculous thread. I'm tired of hearing this ignorant lie that everything starts with Hamas. It does not and never has. This justification of Israel being allowed to defend themselves actually does not apply to Israel as it's impossible for an aggressor to be defending themselves. The forth Geneva convention however does grant Palestine as an occupied territory a right to defend itself though, including through force. It further defines occupied settlers (that would be Israeli settlers in this case) as combatants. That makes the entire settler population combatants. Reservists are also defined as combatants, that means 99.1% of all Israelis over the age of 18 are defined under international law as combatants and open game for Palestinians to legally attack in their struggle to end the occupation. The same right does not transfer for israel to attack Palestinians. Far from it, under international law it can not harm civilians.
@shaunwilson3059 You need to stop listening to absurdist propaganda and give the genocide convention a squiz. That's the document that defines what genocide actually is. For genocide to occur, the population in question must not be an invading or occupying force. Israel is both. For genocide to occur you must be intending to destroy a people on the basis of unified ethnicity or religion. You can't have an ethnicity that includes people of various races, that isn't an ethnicity at all, so israel is out of luck on that front. Similarly, according to Israels own census data just 30% of Israelis identify as religious in any context.
So not that Palestinians have the means to conduct anything like a genocide or even a legitimate military campaign given Palestine as an occupied territory has no military, if they did what is happening in gaza right now wouldn't be. But Palestinians literally couldn't commit genocide against Israel if they tried.
Hamas aren't seeking to get rid of Jews explicitly, their wettest dreams which have zero chance of materialising would be to end israel not Jews.
Before any of you snap back with the obvious argument, probably worth checking the UN definition of apartheid. You can find it in Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SL-ij3rb Karma isn't a real thing. It's merely the fantasy of the powerless. There is no magical hand directing events, it's all just stuff that happens. The only consequences, the only justice, are those we collectively have the will to impose.
This war, and the wider israel-palestine conflict is in fact the result of precisely the kind of magical thinking you propose, from both sides, each thinking they are the right, each thinking they are the victim, each believing they have magical rights to the same land bestowed on them by storybook characters. All of this pain, all of this suffering, all of this bloodshed is down to magical thinking and superstition. We don't need any more of it. We need balanced, rational minds working towards secular peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The cheating law used to convict these two is quite interesting. It's honestly kind of weird that it even exists.
OH Rev Code 2915.05
(A) No person, with purpose to defraud or knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall engage in conduct designed to corrupt the outcome of any of the following:
(1) The subject of a bet;
(2) A contest of knowledge, skill, or endurance that is not an athletic or sporting event;
(3) A scheme or game of chance;
(4) Bingo.
(B) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
(1) Offer, give, solicit, or accept anything of value to corrupt the outcome of an athletic or sporting event;
(2) Engage in conduct designed to corrupt the outcome of an athletic or sporting event.
(C)(1) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of cheating. Except as otherwise provided in this division, cheating is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the potential gain from the cheating is one thousand dollars or more or if the offender previously has been convicted of any gambling offense or of any theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, cheating is a felony of the fifth degree.
(2) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of corrupting sports. Corrupting sports is a felony of the fifth degree on a first offense and a felony of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tilethio Nah man, China isn't making colonies. They take a 99 year lease on the infrastructure they just paid for in lieu of repayments when the country defaults.
Most of these countries playing this game are beyond total GDP value in debt. That's how a debt trap works, it has to be beyond GDP or debt can be paid down.
Chinese companies promise local jobs on these infrastructure projects, but imports it's own workforce and provides no local jobs. It's a bait and switch.
The problem isn't access. Facebook, Amazon, Google and Elon Musk haven't been scrambling to wire Africa for internet over the last decade to sure up western access. They're doing it because the rising middle class have disposable income.
This is a race to win establish and win over that income. That's where this is from a western perspective.
From a Chinese perspective, Africa is also a potential food bowl and resources hub for China independent of the west. That's why in addition to BRI China is investing so heavily in agribusiness, sending Chinese to emigrate to African countries and buy up land. That's becoming a big problem for Ghana because the Chinese are undercutting the locals.
It's also why they're investing heavily in the resources sector, not just across Africa but South America as well. China have a dream where they can remove any reliance on western countries, allowing them an upper hand.
In Xi's own words China wants to become the "superpower of superpowers" and it can't do that if it has any reliance on the west. It has to hold all the cards, and that's exactly what China is moving to do.
Where as the west are still somewhat in denial over what China is doing, they think this is just the normal game of capitalism being played out, most competitive wins. They'll wake up to what's happening around 2025 when China makes it's first big shift in the supply chain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lightstation_ Why do people find it so hard to read job listings? All entry level jobs are not the same and definitely not the same amount of entry. That is, some entry level jobs are entry to the job market in general, and some are entry level for the industry or specific organisation. There's a difference between those things.
For example, there's a clear skill difference between an entry level job working McDonald's, and an entry level job as a medical intern. One should obviously hope that an applicant to a medical internship role has medical training and experience behind them through their coursework. You don't want joe blogs down the road who has never been to med school to apply, right?
Whereas McDonald's doesn't require any prior experience because it's a true entry to the job market job.
Some entry level jobs who want experience, just mean they want you to have had a job before, not necessarily in the industry or similar role. Just a job so there's someone who can vouch for you. For org specific entry level jobs, yes they want you to have pripr experience in the role.
But many roles I see people talking about as entry level aren't entry level at all. They're just roles at the bottom, but they don't go anywhere. They aren't an entry, they're just a role and are treated as such.
Ultimately what you need to consider is the need the org has that the role is trying to solve. If its a true no skills job, like pushing the picture of the food the customer orders, then there won't be any experience requirements. If it does require some skills even if they're low barrier ones, then there will be an experience requirement. If it requires trust, there will also be an experience requirement but that is for any work, they just want old bosses to confirm you're any good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
lol. This is complete gen z nonsense. The industrial revolution, sometimes called the automation revolution, isn't over. We're experiencing the 6th wave right now as computer systems, generative learning models and robotics begin their integration into more systems and roles than ever before.
It's interesting that you only describe survey results for 2022 instead of survey results over time. I mean, after all if you had it would be clear concern with productivity is in decline. When people answer that question they aren't talking exclusively about economic productivity, but feeling productive more generally including not limited to, economic productivity.
Manufacturing still remains, without it we wouldn't have any of the goods that facilitate our lives, and office work would not be possible. Office work too is in many ways a production line using system. There is indeed focus for improving systems in office work. Indeed there are roles dedicated to this task, in addition to general operations roles where systems efficiency is part of the remit, there are "change managers" and "efficiency and improvements officers". Their entire job is to seek out means to improve systems, processes and procedures, be it organisation wide or focused on a single business line or department. The point of all productivity improvements to systems is to have workers produce more in the same time. This is central to maintaining low prices under a system of constant inflationary pressure. That isn't new, it's been that way for as long as capitalism has existed. Socialism and communism have similar productivity pressure only that pressure comes from the state directly in order to feed everyone and keep the state viable. See the DPRK.
Feeling productive in ones life is critical to general well-being. This has nothing to do with economics and is culturally independent.
The drive to productivity really comes from a core human attribute, the need to feel useful to the group. If you're in a small tribe living off the land, any member who does not pull their own weight is a burden on the group. This concept remains true regardless of population scale or economic system in place. It's why people value it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joe78man False. You're trying to rationalise why this is on the news because you didn't understand the story. So you're making the false assumption that something illegal has occurred even though they are explicit in the story that nothing illegal has occurred.
The "leak" is actually just public company records. The group of "journalists" is actually a political activist group who are jealous of the rich.
Having a company does not mean you're committing a crime. It doesn't even mean you're trying to hide something, but even where you are that doesn't predetermine a crime is being committed.
For example, you may create a holding company for your real estate holdings to group all the legals and taxation surrounding those assets, such that it's easier to work with and you gain benefits in depreciation and capital gains tax.
You may be attempting to hide a purchase from a spouse, nor because it's illegal but because perhaps they have strong feelings about the purchase or to protect the asset should the marriage fail.
You can use companies in certain jurisdictions to reduce your tax obligations for a particular asset or earnings.
You could be using companies in particular jurisdictions to be able to even make a purchase at all. That is, in some jurisdictions only those within the jurisdiction may purchase certain categories of assets, so by registering a company in the jurisdiction to make the purchase, it becomes legal to do so.
You may be using a company to purchase say, your house, because you're a public figure and don't want people to know where you live. Or to hide your investment in something, like say research, because you don't want your involvement to overshadow the project itself.
You may be using a company or trust because it's legally advantageous to do so, such as receiving particular legal benefits, gaining access to fleet leasing, better purchasing deals or being able to own an asset or earnings amongst a group. The entertainment industry for example regularly uses companies to split earnings between a performer and their management, publicist, etc who all work on percentage based commission and need access to the performers money to pay for things on their behalf.
Nothing illegal has occurred, not a single thing and they are explicit about that in this story. At 2:50 They are explicit nothing illegal has happened.
The story is essentially "look at those rich people doing a thing I can't afford to do and never realised I could do because I can't afford top lawyers and accountants, man we hate them for having money that we don't, they're rich so why do they get to have any privacy that stop us reporting on stuff"
Btw, you're commenting on a public thread, on a public video, on a public platform, on a open service. You're doing the equivalent of standing in the street yelling out to no one in particular and throwing a tantrum when someone replies.
So no mate, that you didn't explicitly direct your comment to me is meaningless and irrelevant.. If you do not want your ideas challenged, don't comment.
Edit: Formatting
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The inflated menu item prices in app are done by the restaurant themselves to cover the cost of packaging and the fee from the app.
A restaurant isn't going to continue using a service if it's losing them money, because if they did that restaurant wouldn't exist much longer. You, the customer, are paying their delivery costs.
You the customer are also paying a delivery cost to use the app, another for the driver and if you live in the USA where tipping in a thing, another fee because your driver is begging for cash.
Drivers don't have it anywhere near as bad as they make out. Let's be clear, just like a restaurant isn't going to continue using a service if they make a loss, a driver isn't going to continue providing a service if they make a loss. Remember, these apps are a market platform like eBay. They aren't intended as a full-time income, they're a supplemental income in addition to an actual job. If you're looking for an actual job, these apps arent that.
If you're unemployable because of a lack of marketable skills, you can't complain you don't make enough money. That's on you for failing to up skill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Little Bear's Party
@Timothy Gillett
This is a video which at it's core attempts to link diet as the main driving force behind obesity & heart disease. This is a false ideological narrative.
Studies, including medium scale double blind studies repeatedly demonstrate that changing diet alone has limited effect on fat percentage and BMI. Double blind studies demonstrate the opposite for changing level of daily activity alone. That is, if you keep the same diet without making any changes but increase level of daily activity you will;
(A) Decrease fat percentage
(B) Increase muscle percentage
(C) Decrease arterial plaque
(D) Decrease cholesterol
(E) Increase lung capacity
(F) Lower resting heart rate
(G) Increase overall cardiovascular and respiratory health
(H) Increase bone density
(I) Plus many more benefits
These benefits do not come from changing diet alone. We aren't talking about going to the gym or jogging for 30 minutes. Those are the minimum levels of activity you can do to not die. What we're talking about is activity across the whole of lifestyle and the kinds of choices to make in life.
That is not to say diet is irrelevant to health, on the contrary of course it impacts overall health and contributes to these two conditions specifically. However it is far from the main driving force behind them and is certainly not an emergency.
Are you aware that sitting has been demonstrated clinically to be more dangerous than smoking? Sitting for longer than 20 minutes at a time, or greater than 6 hours cumulative in a day increases your risk of heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular disease, high cholesterol and a myriad of other health impacts including risk of some types of cancer, above the risk of even smoking. Indeed there is some evidence to suggest sitting is now the leading cause of heart disease. That's without mentioning the obvious impact it has on obesity rates.
Now think about how much you sit in a day, you may even be sitting right now. You sit in the car. You sit in front of the tv. You sit while you eat. You may sit while you work. You sit with you have a conversation. How many hours in a day all up are you sitting? Do the math.
Furthermore, the opening snippet was simply popularist jag. Cereal mascots have no impact on obesity. The kinds of children whom might be tempted by cartoon monkey's, tigers and toucans don't buy cereal because they don't have any money and cannot shop independently due to their age. Children in that age bracket certainly may desire the box with the cartoon monkey but they are confined to the will and behaviour of their primary carer (parents). Little nigel has no buying power unless his parent ingratiates him with it. He can only buy the cereal his parent allows.
Cereal mascots have existed since the 1920s. Diets were interestingly higher in caloric intake in the 1950s. The obesity epidemic only took off in the late 80s and into the 90s, which is precisely when sedentary lifestyle set in and we started doing all this sitting.
There's another dark horse factor here that is rarely talked about publicly. Nano exhaust. These are the tiny particles from vehicle exhaust (particularly trucks) which can not be captured or reburned before exiting the vehicle. People living in traffic corridors have twice the risk of obesity and 3x the risk of heart disease than their neighbours just one street over.
This video is pushing an ideological agenda, and not one based in medical reality.
P.S. @Timothy Gillett I also disagree with your assessment of CH4 News. They are in fact an ideologically driven activist tabloid, close to and sometimes even identical in style to the daily mail. They constantly mistake the personal opinions, view points or interpretations of the hosts and reporters for journalism. Which of course it is not. The host in this video is one of worst culprits of this kind of behaviour. Anything approaching actual journalism regardless of quality is scarce to come by in the UK market, so I can understand how you might make this mistake. But CH4 is amongst the worst offenders of tabloidism. They don't report news, they take news and curate it until it sells whatever idea or opinion they want you to have. When you like that with a public asset, such as CH4 is, then it becomes dangerously close to propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is a joke report right?
FIDO exchanges a key with the login server. It's still using a password, the user just doesn't know what that password is.
Consumer grade biometrics are not secure. They're so insecure that Android has an official warning about it in face ID and fingerprint.
Every white hat known to man has demonstrated how insecure biometrics are on Windows, iOS, MacOS and Android.
There's a reason banks ask for a pin and not a thumbprint. Passwords are actually the most secure form of identification we have.
It's why when you set up face ID or a fingerprint your device will insist that you set a password at the same time, and will request the password on restart. The biometrics is only for when you've already authenticated you have possession of the device.
2FA, whether it's in the form of a device, biometrics or an OTP is a great addition to passwords. They help where people aren't using well built passwords or may be duped by a phishing scam.
The claim that passwords are the biggest vulnerability to hacking is an outright demonstrable lie. Anyone who has worked for even 5 minutes in IT knows the biggest security risk a system has it isn't USERS. The overwhelming majority (66%) of "hacking" events that occur each year happen because of social engineering. That is, fooling someone in some way who has access to a system to grant access to you or to provide the details that would grant you access.
That can be as simple as pretending to be a new employee and asking for a login to the system. Or it can be as complex as impersonating someone on a phone banking call to get them to provide the internet banking details. It can be phishing emails or redirects, and anything in between.
People are the biggest security risk, because people are easily fooled.
Systems like FIDO and SQRL attempt to remove the user from that equation but open up new entry points bigger than those of passwords.
That's why they've been talking about ditching passwords in computers since 1987, before the internet even existed and Bill Gates infamous suggestion that the internet will never take off. That's how long Microsoft has been trying to make biometrics a thing.
Passwords are with us for quite some time to come.
Want to be secure online? Use a password manager (plenty of open source options if you're cheap) to generate a unique 24 character or longer pseudorandom password for EACH website you visit. Then have it autofill the password if you're too lazy to make two clicks.
Avoid time clock based 2FA, OPT or physical device is better. Enable that and you're good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neither of you appear to understand how voting actually works. I hear nonsense excuses and one of you is a ridiculous apologist for military dictatorships.
Voting doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's not the case that just because you vote for some other guy that, that person is definitely going to win. Nor does an incumbent losing mean they cease to exist or remain untouched in their platform.
Politicians don't want to lose their jobs, so when they do those who want to remain in politics take the feedback from the electorate and adjust their policies.
Similarly, votes can be spread across candidates creating a situation where there is no winner an the election has to be held again. That kind of feedback from the electorate tells politicians they need to change their platform in order to split the divide.
Where another candidate receives enough support to take the election, they have an appealing platform. You have to hope they meant it and punish lying politicians at the polls so it stops happening.
This has nothing to do with borders, everyone whose candidate doesn't win an election feels dissatisfied with the results and a bit miffed. That's normal regardless of where you're from, it's part of democracy.
Most democratic countries have tens if not hundreds of competing interest groups. Every democratic country has warring factions. Africa is no different.
It takes time for a society to build a political class, and democracies need strong constitutional protections, including separation of militaries from political life. A constitution, social structure and political education that means when people's candidates lose a fair election they take the loss with dignity.
That's the problem in many African countries, not where borders are drawn.
1
-
@musafawundu6718 I work with governments every day. There is no nativity on my part. There seems to be some nativity occasioning cynicism or defeatism on your part however.
Your cynical view of corruption is both fallacious and entirely misconstrues the point I have made. There is further misreading of the use of "political education". These things are interrelated.
Democracy is relatively new in many of the unstable African nations when compared with stable democracies anywhere in the world. If you look at the history of the top stable democracies today such as to examine a period as early as the unstable African nations you find the same kinds of in fighting, civil wars, coup d'etat and societal disharmony.
Societies have to learn to be democratic. That's not a formalised, structured course, it's practical learning through successive election cycles and across generations. And from that learning comes a political class, people who really take those lessons to heart and standing on each others shoulders strengthen the constitution, legislative protections and create independent oversight.
It takes time to build a strong democracy. That's why they're called developing nations not just developing economies. Because their whole nation is still developing, they're still evolving socially, politically, economically, legislatively, etc. to arrives at a position of stability and shared prosperity.
All politicians are not in the job solely for self enrichment. Dictatorships, such as military coups however are. If democracy was just as scam for personal gain then everyone would be trying to get in on it. Corruption exists, it exists in every political system in every country. The point is when it exists in a dictatorship you can't do anything about it, but you can do something about it in a democracy.
That something you can do is hold them to account at the ballot box. Strong independent media play a role here by mirroring public sentiment and making doing something about corruption an election issue. These kinds of national discussions morph political campaigns and platforms because their jobs rely on pleasing the people.
But everything won't be solved overnight or in one election cycle you have to be realistic. It's a repetitive process through which you acquire successive gains. Sometimes the electorate makes a mistake and votes the wrong person in, then you take a step back. But it's a mistake easily corrected at the next election.
Unaided, it takes hundreds of years to get from zero to a stable, functional democracy. This is where developed nations have a role to play in helping developing nations learn from the mistakes of those who have come before and speed up the timeline.
1
-
@LLAALALA " essentially you are saying because people have different political views and constitutional needs that there are problems in Africa "
This is so far away from what you quoted as to be blatant strawman. The rest of your comment continues on the basis of this strawman without any consideration to what I have actually said.
That means you either have some serious problems with comprehension occassioning bias, or you are a disingenuous commenter.
You seem obsessed with borders and the fact that people inside those borders disagree as if that's unique. Can you name a country anywhere in the world where everyone has a single political view point? One with single set of needs across all members of society? One that has no division, and no opposing interest groups?
What the text you quoted from me actually says is that a political class doesn't emerge overnight they take time, decades of successive itinerations at the ballot box over generations for real democratic leaders to appear. Politicians aren't magic, they don't just know how to be politicians in a democracy just because a country became one, they have to learn now to be democratic politicians because ultimately they're just citizens. The whole of society needs to learn how to be a democratic society, it takes time.
Strong constitutional protections ensure things like freedom of political speech, but they also help to counteract potential corruption and install military forces as subservient apolitical organisations as opposed to members of political life. When militaries are independent parties of political life you get military coup d'etats, it's that simple. When militaries are apolitical organisations reporting to an elected politician in government with committee oversight, the risk of a military coup is almost zero.
Dealing with social division isn't about assimilation to a single view point, that isn't a reasonable position to take. It takes a social evolution where people understand the process, and accept that no one is ever 100% happy in a democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@musafawundu6718 That poor people want to stop being poor is entirely irrelevant to this specific discussion. This thread is about democracy and what facilitates military coup d'etats, NOT economic development.
Unless you get seriously lucky resources wise with market demand and have a governance in place (regardless of political system) capable of identifying and rapidly exploiting that opportunity, the only shortcut to economic development is intense foreign investment of the order which leads to cultural and political interference from the foreign investor(s). The latter is the kind of thing that all African countries are sensitive to due to colonisation.
Economic development takes time even under the best of circumstances. It's not the kind of thing that as a general rule^ happens within a single generation.
^As previously mentioned, foreign investment &/or resources luck can cause more rapid development however they are the exception not the rule.
Throughout our discussion I keep seeing two themes from you. Firstly I see an erroneous attempt to attach economic development to political system. Again, I can't overstate this enough they are very different things independent of each other.
Secondly, I keep seeing you point at symptoms and describing them as the problems. They're not the problems, they're symptoms of a larger socio-political shift that every country which has transitioned to democracy goes through in the early decades.
This leads me back to my original thoughts on your nativity.
From an economic standpoint, whether you're courting foreign investment or foreign buyers of goods, both want to know the country is politically and socially stable. Every coup d'etat that happens extends the duration of economic development.
So to tie this all back to the video and the original point of this thread, in order to achieve stability democracy has to develop and evolve. In order of it to function the military MUST be removed from political life through constitutional reform. Militaries are extremely unlikely to commit a coup if they are apolitical organisations led by an elected member of the government.
Governments have to be allowed to function and to run their terms. With that said electorates must learn to hold their representatives to account, and where appropriate stand for office themselves.
Lastly, you spoke earlier about politicians who do not buy in to the residual corruption of power brokers left over from dictatorial rule being punished electorally. But here's the point you missed that should give anyone paying attention hope of a better tomorrow. Those politicians exist and more of them try to enter politics at every election. Whether individuals stop running is irrelevant, the point is people keep pushing at the power brokers and it's only a matter of time until the power brokers are gone. That's part of the development I've been talking about, it's the start of the emergence of a political class. Each and every coup d'etat supported by the people sets that process back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScottGrow117 Thanks for the reply.
To your first reply let me briefly explain the concept of IP to you. When companies or individuals invest in developing technology, their investment contracts give them or a holding company they have partial ownership of, a percentage ownership of the IP for the technology being developed. That means to continue to do work on that thing, with the processes developed previously you need to either licence the IP or be doing research directly with the IP owner.
In other words, foreign investment pulls out, and those technologies go with them. They aren't going to just stop developing those technologies because you don't want to do business anymore, it'll just be investment elsewhere, so they're now competing against you instead of with you.
You can try to start from scratch in developing those technologies, but if you can find someone willing to invest they'd be far behind and often there's no other physical way to do the research other than the methods for which you no longer hold the IP. The IP owners are going to be reluctant to licence to a competitor whom is being so hostile.
In terms of the second comment regarding land. Let me ask you, what do you consider "US owned"? If a company/individual from outside the US creates a holding company inside the US, is it US owned? What if they only own a share of that holding company? Is it US owned? What percentage of a US registered company can be owned by non-US companies or individuals before it ceases to become US owned?
I ask because it directly effects your suggestion. If your threshold is just a company registered in the US, then what changes except perhaps in some cases a slight reorganisation of legal corporate structure which doesn't impact on operations in any way. Nothing changes, you still have foreign ownership.
If foreign ownership via a percentage of a company is ok so long as X percentage is owned by US citizens, then you'll just get accounting firms popping up like in tax haven countries where they're hired to be "on the board" of a shell company. Some slight structural changes but operations will continue as normal and you still have foreign ownership.
If no percentage is permissible, then beyond utterly decimating the economy because there's no a single major corporation in the US without some foreign ownership and you'd now have to restrict who can own shares/stocks of US companies as well, but what did you actually achieve? No one can afford land anymore because you've just collapsed the economy entirely.
Let's ignore all of that for a moment, and pretend your suggestion of leasing land makes any kind of sense. Ok, who is the land being leased from? The state like in China? Some wealthy property developer? What benefit did that bring the economy? Is there suddenly more land available for housing because of that? If as you claim it wouldn't effect willingness to invest or do business (it would) so demand then stayed consistent, did it somehow cool the market? By what market force?
Outside of the land of gumdrops and rainbows, back in reality, foreign investment would disintegrate. You'd be essentially stealing land they paid for from foreign investors and removing the economic viability of doing business in the US.
In China when a company leases land, they lease land from the state and those leases is usually somewhere between 99 years to indefinite. There is most often a single upfront lump sum payment to the state for the lease and no ongoing cost. In other words it's as close as the CCP can get to ownership of land and functionally is ownership.
Are you suggesting the same thing in the US? A single lump sum lease payment for 99+ years? Because no one is going to pay a monthly lease for land they previously owned in order to do business in the US.
Given China represents roughly 1.5/8 of the global population, with more billionaires than anywhere else on earth and a fast growing middle class. It's the kind of economy business is willing to invest in and put up with some slight variation to the norm because of how big the economy is and how much money there is to make. Here's a litmus test for you, if you were the head of a large multinational corporation from Sweden or Germany, would you invest in the US under the conditions you're suggesting? What about if you could still sell to the US market without having a physical presence there?
Lastly, to the other part of your second comment regarding free markets. I'm not sure you understand what a free market actually is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:43 No it does not. You are describing fatalism. Fatalism is not determinism.
Fatalism - Something will happen regardless of what anyone does.
Free will - The individual will decide what they're going to do regardless of what anyone does or anything that happens
Determinism - People make choices for themselves, but those choices are informed by their past, their environment, the circumstances occurring at the time of the choice, your other feelings/emotions, how you envision the future, and other contextual variables.
Determinism isn't philosophy, it's material reality as demonstrated in neuroscience.
Imagine you're driving down a road following your google maps. You come to road works with a detour. Fatalism says you continue driving through the road works as google maps says and all the construction workers flailing around are irrelevant. Free will says you probably never made it to the road works, because you were never listening to google maps in the first place and there's a good chance you aren't even on a roadway of any kind at this point. Determinism says you got to the road works, weighed your options and determined taking the detour made the most sense, or maybe you were in a really bad mood that day because you found out your wife was having an afair with one of those construction workers so you determined the best course of action was to drive through the road works and get revenge.
Minority report is talking about determinism. Not fatalism. That's the point of the movie. That's the reason why you feel uncomfortable. Because you know that we're part of a deterministic system, but such systems have randomness as a variable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inezm8444 We can't change that miss magpie is the worst premier in the country and refuses to actually do her job. That however does not change the fact that of the 8 states and territories, 5 states remain at zero cases.
I'm not sure how you did at primary school maths, but 5 is a majority over 3. Furthermore the outbreak in Vic is confined to Melbourne, not regional Victoria which remains restriction free. The majority of regional NSW, some 90% likewise is at zero cases and restriction free.
We're really only talking about Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, accounting for 9.3 million people combined, not the 15 million you suggest.
So with most of the regional areas in NSW and Victoria at zero cases, that only contributes to a solid and marked majority of the country at zero cases.
If you're upset about the case load in NSW, perhaps write an email to miss magpie and tell her to start actually doing her job. Get your friends to do so too, because that woman is still playing political career games and the only way she's going to do her job is if she thinks she won't have one after the next election unless she does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juan-pierreleroux8323 You're spreading lies.
A third shot (booster) is required after 6 months to jog the immune system.
Vaccines regularly require boosters, the MMR schedule for example requires boosters at 6 months, 2 years, 4 years and 13 years then every 10 years thereafter.
Boosters are required because the immune system starts to become less proactive in seeking out the target pathogen over time and so we need to give it a prod to remind it what it's supposed to be doing.
However without the booster AstraZeneca still remains 75% effective, and pfizer is still 67% effective. That is, it's still giving you some protection just not as good as it otherwise could. Normally AstraZeneca and Pfizer are greater than 90% effective.
There is no such thing as natural immunity with SARS-COV-2. The literature is clear that having caught SARS-COV-2 you become more susceptible to reinfection and that's without even factoring in the high chance of "long CoVID"
Moreover, even if natural immunity were possible, people would have to acquire the infection first to get such immunity. In so doing you risk severe illness (which over burdens the health system), you risk death (which is actually at ~6%) and you risk the exceptionally high rate of long CoVID. Long CoVID is no joke mate, people with it have reduced life expectancy and their quality of life plummets. Perhaps more importantly people with long CoVID can no longer work. Would your family be able to survive if you could no longer work?
Greater than 90% of israel is vaccinated. Israel is not showing us "natural immunity" they're showing us that one needs a vaccine, and that boosters were required.
Being scared of needles isn't cause to spread misinformation. You don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bajtjr What is a terrorist in western interests is not necessarily one in Niger interests.
Why do you imagine western countries like France give "foreign aid" to countries like Niger, a country with huge uranium, thorium, gold, oil, refined petroleum, refined uranium, and refined thorium exports? $2.7B USD in gold exports alone last year and their exports are 4x the value of their imports.
Actually use that brain in your head instead of just believing this propaganda bs CH4 is feeding you. This coup is exceptionally popular in Niger, that makes it more like a revolution. They want France, yankville and the west out, that isn't random or without cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I normally really enjoy your videos, but this one was just a bunch of contradictions piled together. First, you make a case that all the people are leaving going so far as to suggest it would soon become only the mega wealthy and the destitute. But then, you go on to talk about the 500K EXTRA housing units required for NYC over the next 10 years.
You don't need 500K new housing units if everyone is leaving. The figure you are looking at is migration loss, not net migration, which tells a different story. You also appear to be forgetting about all the illegals entering who are stuck in the city for the next 3-5 years. If a sanctuary city like NYC can keep those illegal arrivals at or around their current level on an annual basis they have an inbuilt worker class to service the wealthy without the burden of servicing them back.
The "urban doom loop" proposed a false dilemma between higher taxes and cutting services, but those are far from the only options. You demonstrated that yourself moments later when you contradicted the "urban doom loop" nonsense by talking about simply shifting budget priorities.
Interesting you didn't mention the ELECTED OFFICIALS section of the budget was 3% but you wanted to pull money from schools and health to cover justice services (which is more than just police btw) and transport.
Lowering taxes in targetted ways increases the tax base btw because it encourages people in the right income brackets to move into the city and so long as the neighbourhoods they move into have decent services your tax receipts increase. That's the real way to deal with that problem and based on the policies I can see appears to be what Mayor Adams is trying to do. Gentrification of large sections of the city to increase the tax base requires new luxury apartments btw.
Then you showed a survey of 6K NYC residents that suggested they're mostly happy. They're upset about something not receiving enough money, but residents of every city are always upset about something not receiving enough money in the budget. ALWAYS. Move money into that thing and they'll be upset the thing you moved money from is no longer funded the same as it was.
The grocery prices you're showing are on par with those across Australia where I live. Your rents are on par with those in ANY Australian capital city. The word crisis makes things seem dire so it's great for getting peoples attention. But you know, I really don't think things are as dire as they're made out. NYC will keep ticking over just fine and people will want to live there because of the opportunities. Some people will be forced to leave because they can't afford it but that's always been the case. Ten years from now, not a lot will have changed. Probably many of the same things you say today will be the word on the street as a future issue then, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The ancient alien people and the book of enoch always make me laugh the most. Of all the conclusions to jump to if one were to take Enoch literally, aliens would be pretty low on that list.
It seems pretty clear from the evidence that we're discussing works of fiction, and to take them seriously would be the equivalent of taking a superman comic with as much seriousness. But if we put all that aside for a moment, just for the sake of argument, one might say the most likely scenario if not some supernatural magic being is not at all aliens, but instead more advanced human civilisations.
I mean you're an alien species with technology capable of flying millions of light years in such a fraction of a lifetime as to make such travel viable and you can only teach clay pottery? You can only teach metal work for weapons? Why would we think if they were aliens the materials on our planet, under our atmosphere would behave like the materials on theirs under their atmosphere? 😂
You have such advanced technology and yet you're still using combustion rockets? No way. That isn't feasible. And why humans of all animals? I know your ape ego wants to pretend you're a special animal but objectively you aren't. If you then want to blame the rise of civilisation and all those things such as art, science technology and math that came with it on an extraterrestrial species then there go all the things humans would traditionally same make them "better" than other animals.
Again, the most likely explanation is merely imagination. But if we entertain it as literal than we'd need a species invested in humans, capable of interbreding with humans, familiar with earth and earth materials, whom still might be using comhustion technologies and perhaps most importantly would look just like humans...
When we talk about Ethiopia, we're talking about some of the darkest skinned humans on the planet. If you live in a society filled with very dark skinned individuals and a very white, fair skinned individual from Europe, perhaps Scandinavia, turns up, how might you describe their very white, very reflective skin? Noah is described in enoch as a white skinned boy with blonde hair and blue eyes. Who does that sound like? We know a millennia ago vikings who turned up were thought of as giants and we know Ethiopians have some Scandinavian DNA. We also know sea fairing northern europeans visited every country with a flood myth. 🤷♂️
If you were going to take enoch or the epic of Gilgamesh seriously (and you shouldn't), and try to come up with some materialist explanation for spiritualism (and you shouldn't) jumping to aliens seems a ridiculous leap of logic over mere contact with a more advanced human civilisation. Perhaps a civilisation that didn't survive a hypothetical flood.
Perhaps a civilisation where the rich/powerful lived in flying structures and the working class lived in uneducated poverty. A civilisation where interracial relationships were frowned upon. Perhaps even a civilisation of nations whom went to war with each other and caused the flood. Sound familiar? Sound like something a hypothetical advanced human civilisation from the past might do? Did it happen? Probably not, there's no evidence for it. But it's more logical and realistic than freaking aliens. Again, the most likely explanation is they're works of fiction
1
-
1
-
What kind of a ridiculous, backwards question is "why go to war with Australia" then invoking kangaroos and Uluru as if that's all Australia is.
It's like saying Qatar is just a desert or the USA is just a McDonald's.
Australia is an federated island continent. It's a continent that's only 3M km2 smaller in land mass than the continent of Europe. Imagine someone wondering why you'd attack Europe.
As the 11th richest country, Australia is a G20 nation. One with technological exports that change the world every year, many of the technologies you take for granted in everyday life were invented in Australia. Agricultural production of world leading quality that literally feeds half of the planet. Massive resources deposits in gold, uranium, coal, iron ore, oil, natural gas, etc and foundries to convert raw minerals into high quality materials.
Massive solar and wind input, making it ideal for large scale solar and wind power generation projects. Strategically placed such that whilst being the closest landmass to Antarctica, it's also within striking distance of both Beijing and Washington, as well as everything in-between.
A garrett aryan democracy having benefited from generations of measured, thoughtful, knowledgeable governance. A friendly, community forward country with extremely low rates of violence.
As a military force, Australia is the country the western powers turn to for help when they have essential military missions that can't go wrong.
The question isn't why attack Australia. It's why aren't more countries trying to acquire Australia. It's as close to a perfect country as anyone could ever hope for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonymousanonymous2019 That you think this says more about you than me. You can't take reality when it's told to you, so you cope by calling it bait.
The learning curve between windows and MacOS is almost flat. Sure, they each have their own slight differences but all the basics are there. You find software in the same way. You install software in the same way. You use software in the same way. You interact with software in the same way. And the whole time the OS and the softeare is doing 99.9% of the work for the user and all they really need to know is where the on button is on their computer.
It's a similar story for mobile OSes, android and iOS have an almost flat learning curve between them. Importantly, there's almost a flat learning curve between popular mobile OSes and popular desktop ones. The concepts familar, the effort on the part of the user, almost zero. They're so simple toddlers and geriatrics can use them.
Linux will always be a niche for geeks, freaks and servers precisely because it doesn't have these qualities. I'm sure that's why you like linux, but it's why it will never be mainstream. People would rather be spied on by Microsoft, Apple &/or Google, than have to deal with linux.
It won't get anywhere until it's a for profit commercial product with closed source and the average lowest common denominator in mind. As Linus nears retirement and the Linux foundation lose interest in maintaining the kernal, it becomes a possibility. But it's one that I suspect people like you will oppose and get your knickers in a twist over. But it's the only way Linux ever leaves the shadows and joins the mainstream. By no longer being linux, by being something more, by treating you like an average user...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonymousanonymous2019 You seem to have jumped into a logical fallacy here by deciding I'm not an intended audience. Recognising a shortcoming of a project is not indicative of anything beyond the stated recognition. As previously stated, I use redhat, almalinux, and debian every day. I'm not, by a long way, the first to make such observations about Linux. That's why projects like the suckless tools exist. It's why snap and package manager exist. It's why linux has been trying to decades to be more compatible with Windows and MacOS. It's why steam built Proton or whatever they call their launcher these days.
You may not personally care about the market share of Linux. No one asked you to, and if you don't that's fine. But in that case my comment wasn't for you. You aren't the intended audience. I do care. That's kind of the point of the comment. Many others care too, that's why there are so many projects working on it. But all of these projects are constrained by the licence. They can't make money in any predictable way, so they will never succeed. That's the whole thing.
Linus is coming to retirement. He will retire before the end of the decade. The Linux Foundation is ramping down funding for kernal development and have been doing so for a number of years now. Indeed they've been funding everything but linux in the last few years.
This has implications for Linux going forward. When Linus retires and the linux foundation inevitably leaves the kernal in the dust, who gains control of its development will dictate market share and the entire linux landscape going forward. If a commercial entity gain control (and there's some talk of it being big blue) then linux desktop WILL become commercial, and it WILL stop sucking. It WILL also start spying on you for profit in the same way Windows and MacOS do.
Server distros of linux are already commercial. That's what makes them viable and not sucky. Trying to use any of those systems as a desktop environment would be silly. We already have two buckets in distros.
As for this channel, I strongly disagree on its nature. It's a channel primarily about privacy, security, and politics. It is not a channel about linux, nor are any of the videos particularly advanced in their information or execution.
It seems to me that your response is born out of taking offence to the fact linux in its current form is for geeks, freaks and servers. That's just a truth, or it would be mainstream already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Fact checking" is the biggest scam in political history. It is shameful. It's never objective truth, it's always biased propaganda.
What a surprise though that France24 are upset that woke bigotry is being driven out. What a vile, discriminatory and power hungry ideology.
Who cares what the personal wealth of an individual is. That doesn't matter. Neither does their skin colour, their sxuaity, their gender, their religious beljefs or any other irrelevant personal trait. What matters is whether they can do the job. Do they have the individual merits and skills to do the job well or to achieve a goal? And are they willing to faithfully execute that mission. That's all that matters. What a very silly debate and it's clear that 3 of the participants don't even understand why this is being debated.
Wow, some people changed their minds about a political candidate or a policy stack. Amazing. Who would have thunk that possible. Not socialists, that's for sure.
Peirre is clearly so far up the garden path that he's lost touch with reality. The only people buying the conspiracy theories he's selling are his fellow ideologues. Like the host.
Jakob and Christine brought rational thought to the show. Probably because they're the only ones on the show with any real world, practical experience.
The role of government is to create an environment in which private wealth can thrive. Government has always been owned by the most wealthy, and always will be. Not just under capitalism, but socialism too. The elites are always elite, that's why economic mobility is so important
1
-
2:15 Pretty sure the whole point of laws like these, is that these countries do not want to be "diverse societies". Multicultalism does not mean a country with lots of different cultures, divided and all acting for their own interest. It means to have people ORIGINALLY from different cultures who come with their cultural norms to a new land and ASIMILATE. Amongst the process of asimilation, the host culture takes from the new culture the good parts the society likes and incorporates those pieces as their own, whilst discarding everything else. They're melting pots, the key point of which is becoming one and the same.
If you move to a new country, expect to give up ALL of your culture, ideas, beliefs and desires that do not align with those of the country you are moving to. So choose wisely when you emigrate. When you immigrate and try to change the host country to fit where you came from better you spark hostility and honestly, if you want to live where you came from, stay there. More money isn't a reason to move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"We asked economic migrants trying to abuse the system by seeking asylum today whether a proposed bill which hasn't even been presented in the house, let alone become law and resolved any potential legal challenges and thus has no possibility to impact them in any way; will effect their decision to travel today. We took what they said as evidence that a proposed bill will not work".
The absolute absurdity of asking migrants repeatedly throughout the episode whether something that isn't going to impact them because it doesn't exist yet would stop them, is farcical. Ask migrants AFTER it's become law, AFTER it's been enforced and they start seeing the consequences of those decisions.
Of course the Rwanda policy didn't spook the Afghan you were talking to. It isn't an enforceable policy right now and look, he's in the UK. He has what he was after, there was no risk involved he knew he was never in danger of going to Rwanda.
This kind of legislation ONLY works if it's enforced adequately. You have to catch greater than 90% of all boats, and those people have to ALL be deported.
The studio presenter wants there to be some magic solution, but this is reality not a dream. People stop behaviour when the outcomes cease to be what they desire them to be.
Deporting economic migrants en masse works. Look at Australia. 10 years, no boats because of these kinds of policies.
Also, wtf was the shadow immigration minister talking about? How do you clear a backlog FIRST if you haven't stemmed the flow of new applications? It's like trying to build a town in a river before you build a dam. I understand her job is to pretend her brand of nonsense is somehow different from the other brand of the same nonsense whilst saying all the same things, but fix the backlog before stem the flow makes no sense whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really don't get these videos complaining about jobs. So you no longer work in a hostile environment, you should be looking at the positive and just rolling on to a better job. These videos reduce the likelihood of finding new work.
Listen, let's be very clear here. Not a single for profit company on earth actually, genuinely cares about diversity and inclusion. Not a single gosh darn one. They're for profit companies, they care only about profit. The market requires them currently to pretend they care about inclusion and diversity in order to make that profit, but they don't actually and it's only a matter of time before the market flips on virtue signalling either.
If a company feel your actions, behaviour or views might result in less profits, of course you're going to lose your job. Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences from your peers. Take your job into account before you open your mouth. If you wouldn't say it in front of HR, your boss, or their boss, don't say it on social media.
If you're a fresh graduate joining a large nationwide law firm and you are one of just two arab women nationwide working there, it's safe to assume you're an expendable diversity hire. If you're an expendable diversity hire, expect to have to tow a particular line and sell out a certain amount if you want to keep that job. If you don't care about keeping you're job that's cool but you wouldn't make a video like this if you didn't care. But if you do care, you gotta tow that line or get in somewhere you aren't a diversity hire and your values align. Let's be honest though, the latter doesn't pay well.
That's the real world, it isn't rainbows and lollipops. It isn't fair, it isn't equal in outcomes. Best you can hope for is a level playing field. But you'd better bet your bottom dollar that if the choice is between a new graduate who has brought nothing to the company, and some of their biggest closers or some of their biggest clients, you are going to lose every time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Permit me, if you will, to tell you what I believe.
I believe yankville was founded by a bunch of extreme religious zealots and the 18th century rejects of Europe.
I believe it's run by the ancestors of the same morons too extreme for even 18th century Europe.
You can't fix stupid. And so long as you support a two party majority system that also excludes outside ideas, you also can't vote it out.
I believe that yankville is a mediocre country with nothing really going for it, that manipulated it's way into taking on responsibilities a bankrupt Europe didn't want to deal with anymore and would benefit them having outsourced, and yankville has benefitted in economy and stature as a result.
That yankville continues to use the tactics of manipulation and coercion in everyday policies, whilst maintaining one of the biggest, longest running and most developed propaganda campaigns in history to hide just how mediocre and irrelevant they really are, and from their people how beholden to Europe, particularly the UK the country is.
I believe all of the IP yankville has registered since WW2 came off the backs of immigrants or was stolen from other nations. That innovation and greatness in yankville isn't dead, because to die it must have lived and it never has.
I believe these things to be true, because they're supposed by objective facts. A world without yankville wouldn't skip a beat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Time for them to do what exactly? The ransomware in this case, and almost all other cases, was deployed as part of a social engineering attack via email.
88% of all cybercrime is enabled by social engineering. That's when someone who wants access to a system or information tries to convince/manipulate someone who has that access to said system/information to grant them access or provide that information.
It's usually Charlotte in customer service, Kelly in reception or the bosses executive assistant who causes the breech. Someone opens an email, clicks a link, loads a website or literally gives away access and that facilitates the attack.
Companies DO take cybercrime seriously because it costs them money, future business and reputation. The fortune 500 list all spend millions a year on trying to avoid cybercrime. But if Karen in HR clicks a link in that email, it's all over.
That's why the IT department is always harping on about not clicking links and why your boss gets so upset if you do personal web surfing on company computers, even if you're on your lunch break. That's how these breeches happen.
It's about time low level EMPLOYEES start taking cybercrime seriously. And it's about time we start regulating who can access computers. If you don't understand how they work, how the internet works and how you can be attacked, as in reality not some of the crazy fiction I've seen in this thread, then you have no business being online.
1
-
1
-
Here's the reality, no country wants to rely on any other country in a way where they are obligated to do something they otherwise would not.
With that said, money talks. The biggest problem with democracy is it becomes highly susceptible to short term thinking, especially in election season. That means politicians are very often stuck trying to please a populus who want results to the problems they're facing today not talk of planning for the problems they might face tomorrow.
China understands this and has weaponised it to become the powerhouse they are today. Need a solution to cost of living expenses? China has you covered with cheap production to keep FMG prices down. Need to borrow some money to balance your budget or respond to a global pandemic? No problem, China will lend you some cash. Need a new infrastructure project to bring in new opportunities for your region? China will be more than happy to invest, no questions asked. Have some exports you need to sell to increase GDP? China will be more than happy to buy them even if they have no use for them.
The world is now hooked on Chinese money and labour, inadvertently funding the expansion of the Chinese military. And as we've seen with their use of tariffs, they can use it to bend the will of the world to their vision.
It's the same playbook the colonial powers used 400 years ago, the same playbook the USA used in the 70s and 80s to get themselves on top. But the USA seem to have become addicted to violence instead, so they jump to military action.
Violence mind you that thanks to western investment China is now very much in a position to shrug off, especially given their growing alliance with Russia. Violence that likewise will be distasteful to the rest of the world, including even the US's closest allies.
If the USA wanted to win back a position of influence what they actually need to do is go on a spending spree around the world in the same way China is. Buying up products China attaches tariffs too and investing in civil infrastructure projects no questions asked.
Unfortunately for the USA, they lack the capital to do such a thing themselves heavily addicted to Chinese money, trade and labour.
So with that in mind, what the USA really needs to understand is, they've already lost. And what the rest of the world need to understand is, you've already chosen China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schtreg9140 Literally nothing you said there was accurate, and quite frankly you continue to miss the point.
The point in the illustrative comparison is that neither of these events have anything to do with brexit. I'm not sure how that's lost on you, it's a very simple concept.
But let's go through and correct you on your factual errors just for giggles (and to drive home how very silly you are).
First and foremost, anthropological climate change and AGW are processes that have been occuring since the start of the industrial revolution. That's not a century of emissions mate, this didn't start at the beginning of the 20th century lol. That's 2 and a half centuries, 261 years to be specific. It occurs as a matter not of emissions alone but scale dude to population boom which has been occuring for a mere decade less (251 years) and facilitated by industrialisation.
The recent germanic floods were not related to climate change. They're part of a cyclic water system that has been documented geologically as having occurred for the last 40,000 years. Every 100 years, or there about, the region sees a larger flood than normal, and every 300 years or there about, it sees a massive flood 10x the one recently seen. Indeed that's how those valleys were carved out.
2 seasons from now, everyone in Germany will have forgotten the floods, because they won't occur like that again for another century. Look back a century and you can indeed see news reports of the same level of flood damage.
What's happening in the UK isn't about brexit at all, it's multiple things all happening at once to cause a storm. There's been a freeze on new HGV licences limiting the number of new drivers. The logistics companies are playing silly games trying to drive down wages because they're not happy they can't pay an EU peasant a quarter the wage and give them shameful conditions anymore. The unions are unhappy with that behaviour and have been freaking everyone out about supply to try and drive up wages.
So now there's a run on petrol stations. Do you know what a run is? It's when everyone changes their routine and tried to get the same thing all at once. No matter what country you live in, and whether it's a grocery store, a bank, a petrol station or some other kind of retailer, they're only ever stocked to a maximum of their normal activity. A bank will only get a cash delivery on a Wednesday of the volume of cash the bank will usually see on a Wednesday plus 10%. A petrol station will only get a fuel delivery of the volume of fuel they'll use in the delivery period which can vary between daily, 3 daily or 7 daily depending on the specific station. So if the station suddenly gets huge demand because everyone is freaking out, then they temporarily run out until the next delivery.
We saw the same thing across the EU in supermarkets from CoVID-19 panic buying. It isn't that the country had run out of supply, or that there was a genuine shortage, it's that there was a very temporary shortage because of a run. The same thing is happening with petrol. Western society relies on people having routines and for the most part sticking to them. When people change their routines en masse, things go pear shaped.
The UK has plenty of petrol, it just needs to be delivered. In a week this will be over and forgotten.
Brexit itself will do good things for the UK. They've already managed to secure trade deals over the last few months that the EU has been courting for years. Trade deals that will see the UK even less dependent on the EU, and more economically vibrant.
By the end of this decade the UK will have transformed itself and managed to be in a far better economic position than the EU. Indeed Germany should be very worried right now as it looks like the Greens are about to become part of government, which is only going to dampen the domestic economy and mess up ties with China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PBRichfield ICANN isn't a central internet anything. They control a section of gTLDs, oversee standards for a section of DNS and push their security agenda through the former two.
But whilst ICANN does have international cooperation, many countries have their own ICANN equivalent bodies that mirror ICANNs function on a narrower scale. ICANN whois can't even read the db for many of these entities. They're walled, so ICANN have to attempt to convince each of these entities to use the same DNS standards and upgrade in sync which almost never happens smoothly. So there's all this fallback stuff in the system.
Remember in 2011 when RIAA tried to sue ICANN then later dropped the suit when they realised ICANN aren't anything near as powerful as they first thought? RIAA are back at attacking ICANN since 2021 along with the DNS providers like Quad9. I guess their plan this time is to go after both and take out a good portion of the popular internet. Quality of service isn't their concern, if they could get rid of the internet entirely I have no doubt they would.
The problem these conglomerates face is there is no one they can befriend, lobby or bribe to get favourable terms, legislation or exemptions. There is no enforcement agency that can selectively persecute their smaller competitors on their behalf. The domestic tactics that made them conglomerates in the first place don't work in the digital world because it's fundamentally an open standard.
THAT is what they want to change. It's inevitable that it will happen eventually, the only question is how long we can fight them off. So when I say centralised internet, I mean a fractured closed standard that you need some kind of regulatory permission to participate in commercially. A system where setting up an internet facing server at home or in an office without an expensive permit to do so is a crime. Think of it like a gas pipeline, where you need permits to build and those permits are behind a biased regulatory wall that manages competition to the existing players.
You know those times when YouTube or [enter additional platform here] have copyright claimed works which weren't the claimants work but were slightly similar in some way, then refused to lift the strike on appeal? Those aren't accidents. Imagine that, only 1000x more aggressive and across the entire internet where only the people whom agree to play by those rules get to exist.
That's the internet they're after. That's what going after Quad9 is about. Taking down a major part of infrastructure and forcing them to act in that manner is the first steps down that path.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@radroatch I'm sorry but I'm correct, objectively so.
The high court does not provide definitions, it provides interpretations of existing law, taking definition into account. Definition is provided in legislation itself. Those are different things.
I'm glad you brought the high court up. What Braverman was saying is that the high court interpretation was ideologically led and did not account for definitions in its judgement.
She is at least correct on the definitions part. Persecution is very specifically defined under the convention and no reasonable person would conclude that descrimination met the criteria. Because it does not. Please actually look to the convention itself and it's paired domestic ratified law. Legal definitions do not change with social attitudes, that's the entire point of defining things legally. When the refugee convention was written the entirety of the west felt the same way about homosexuality as Uganda do today and it was still a crime in England to be gay. That is the context in which the convention and it's copious definitions were written
As for whether Braverman is right or wrong on her assertions about the court, I cannot say. The judgement does seem to disregard the definitions, but one can never know the motivations.
End of the day, being born gay in poor, rural Uganda is not cause of asylum under the convention. That's by definition economic migration of unskilled workers. It isn't new that Uganda don't appreciate homosexuality, that was introduced by the British during colonisation. The new law doesn't criminalise all homosexuality either. Indeed the new law if you bother to read it, is based in fantasy. It suggests there are bands of homosexuals roving the countryside kidnapping people and forcing them into sodomy. So long as one doesn't engage in that kind of behaviour the law doesn't effect them.
The evictions, beatings, etc on the basis of homosexuality have been happening for decades. They still happen in the UK too if we're being brutally honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:45 "...and outlined in his letter to the newspaper exactly how he was able to access the system intended only for LAW ENFORCEMENT "
Might I humbly suggest that what he was accessing is the page Hawaiian police use in the precinct and their cruisers when they're runnjng someone. That would explain why records go back 25 years and include SSN data and DMV information, along side all offences including parking tickets. Ie. The police offenders database.
Assuming that's true, as it sounds it may well be, it doesn't really matter what vulnerability existed in the website that allowed him to access that part of the system. Because ultimately those kinds of systems should not be occupying the same server let alone part of the same system. They should be air gapped completely as separate services such that it's impossible for the two systems to ever be accessed from each other.
Judiciary data should be transferred one way to the police database by a separate agnostic transport layer.
3:19 "Upon learning of the access to the governors records, the judiciary shut the system down, fixed the vulnerability and brought the system back online.."
4:38 "Chief staff attorney told the star advertiser there is no further vulnerability of the jeffs system like the one described by the attorney..."
4:48 "In a letter to him, the administrator and director of the courts wrote that the process he described to access the confidential information could not be discovered by a regular jeffs user..."
These 3 statements do not go together. You can't fix a vulnerability that doesn't exist. If a 75 year old attorney can do these steps there's a very good chance any regular user can do the same. They may mean a regular user, using the system as intended and this is a SQL injection attack or some such. But even if that is the case, that still doesn't explain why the systems are connected to each other. Nor does it explain why this whistle blower should be liable for identifying these vulnerabilities.
I don't understand why every government department doesn't have a bug bounty program for their online systems. They absolutely should, that's how they flush out vulnerability and create, secure systems that protect citizen data.
1