171–180 of 297 posts
Chinese Netizens are very familiar with Xi Jinping's national ID number precisely for this reason :-) ID verification is enforced on all Chinese websites. People figured out they can just use Xi's ID number.
lol on a much lighter note, for many years I used to use 111-111-1111 as a general phone number for CVS card discounts. It stopped working several years ago though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, the UK Police wouldn't typically let you get away with "it's just a joke". This would constitute a mixture of identity theft, fake ID and misuse of computers.
It's literally just sticking the MPs name into an AI and asking for it to generate a mock ID for them. None of their real data is being used (e.g. their face, their DoB, the address) and the mock IDs wouldn't fool anyone for a second. I'd love if someone who understands the law would weigh in though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019. Instead they increased it to its highest ever levels by far, hence why they got thrown out of office. Have you ever met or spoken to a Conservative voter in your entire life?
They promised a policy (Brexit) in a form that would replace immigration from European countries with immigration from non-white countries. In fact, the Tories did NOT promise to reduce immigration. They promised 2 things that are guaranteed to increase immigration: - 50,000 extra nurses (including foreign recruitment) - A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration Source:…
> A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration
Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? And secondly, how is that guaranteed to increase immigration?
The UK media and some of politicians at the time were all talking about an Australian-style points system. As someone pretty intimately acquainted with the Australian system, people (including ex-PM Teresa May) didn't seem to understand that under the Australian system -
- The government sets a minimum number of points under which you won't even be considered.
- The government set a maximum number of visas they will grant under the scheme each year
- The people with the best points are invited to apply for those visas
So with this setup the 'paper' minimum might be 65 points, but the effective threshhold is often 95 points to actually be invited to apply.
Yet in the UK the picture was painted as if you set a points threshhold and that's it, anyone with more than that gets a visa and you can't possibly control the numbers. It seemed like a total misunderstanding of the scheme.
They also said things like "And Australia has proportionally even higher migration than the UK under that scheme!", which is true, but again that's because the government has decided to set the amounts of visas at that level and sets them higher or lower, or adjusts which skills get more points, according to perceived need for skilled people. Aus has higher migration under their points scheme as a choice. The UK could have chosen to limit skilled visas under a similar program to a much lower level.
As far as I could tell, all of the articles and talking points at the time entirely ignored this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol on a much lighter note, for many years I used to use 111-111-1111 as a general phone number for CVS card discounts. It stopped working several years ago though.
As a Canadian I was lost and confused when visiting the States (in the before time) and a gas pump asked for my zip code. So I put in the one and only zip code I know. I bet you can guess.
Chinese Netizens are very familiar with Xi Jinping's national ID number precisely for this reason :-) ID verification is enforced on all Chinese websites. People figured out they can just use Xi's ID number.
Although I suspect such ... "innovations" ... would soon get to the western world including UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How easily can a burner be used? Are sim cards easily swapped?
> Are sim cards easily swapped? Very easily. Apple even specifically introduced dual-sim iPhone for China. > How easily can a burner be used? You need to bring your ID to a telecom to get a phone number legally. But I don't know if there is a black market for burner sims. (Last time I've been there was a few years ago so take it with a grain of salt.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a fucking mess. Labour voted in conservative policy. Conservatives voted against it. Reform, whilst all over the news for being against it, voted for it.
I think it's fun when the elected government doesn't do what the people who elected them want. Like a middle finger to democracy.
I can't think of a country that does have people largely in agreement with the governments actions, lately.
Or perhaps, for any given country, one can find a collection of loud voices detailing how 'the people' disagree with what's happening. But whether they meaningfully do is hard to establish.
I imagine a lot of Brits agree with the incoming rules, whether they are effective or not. You find that here in Aus too - a lot of Australians vehemently agree with the protectionist laws, because the intent of them is to protect children. And to many of them it doesn't matter what the real outcome is, because you want to protect children don't you? And this law is to protect children, QED.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as "burner". Phone number is very hard to get and requires ID verification and sorts
It's very easy to get. As a visitor, I got one in the airport for $20. "ID verification" is stretching it, but like so many things in China it requires the vendor to take a photo of your ID, and unusually also to take a photo of you and submit it to the telecom website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what this recent vote is about. The original Online Safety Act was introduced and passed by the Tories in 2023 (although it's only coming into effect now, obviously.) So the Tories, who created this awful bill in the first place, are now voting against it? Clown country.
Labour thought Tory version was not going far enough.