231–240 of 297 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ubow Tubu Wobun Thrube Fubor? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHjMEwZt5OE
https://youtu.be/XanjZw5hPvE?si=Og-5iyLzjxebT6EF
I was inputting for ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me: I've noticed that Starbucks now requires a few pieces of information to use their WiFi network. One is email and they are doing some sort of validation which will reject emails like whoopsileanedonxxxxxxxx@aol.com but will accept other, legit AOL emails. How are they deciding what is/not a valid email? Are they using a compiled list of emails that have been seen in the wild? What if it's a brand new…
They can connect to a mail server and pretend that they are going to send a message and the server would reject the invalid recipient email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Did it work?
Do please take a moment to consider which MPs carry the burden here. It's mainly a single flavour. Mention it on the doorstep next time. https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1926
What's really interesting is those that voted "Aye" who aren't Labour/ex Labour
DUP and Reform. Well the one reform MP that bothered to turn up. How surprising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Reform MPs did not vote at all! Neither did a lot of conservatives and labour, interestingly. Greens and Lib Dems voted no, which raises my opinion of them. Agreed its a mess.
Just for the benefit of those unfamiliar with UK politics: "most" is a bit misleading here, even though it's technically true. Reform has 4 MPs (out of 650).
They have the same number of MPs as the Green party, fewer than the DUP, half the SNP, and about 1/20th of the Lib Dems.
I note 75% of them didn't bother turning up to work, I'm shocked one did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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:…
> In fact, the Tories did NOT promise to reduce immigration. In fact they did. They promised to reduce immigration. They did the opposite of what you just said. Their 2019 manifesto said "There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down. " Source: PDF linked on https://conservativehome.com/2019/12/06/read-the-conservativ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? Boris introduced 2 million (legal) immigrants in the first (unaffected) year we "took back control" of the borders under the new system rolled out in 2020 The UK's new points-based immigration system - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
Oh they did introduce a system, OK, wasn't aware. Perhaps in all the talk of making the system like the Australian one, they missed the crucial part of it - that you also apply limits to the visas you issue. In fact it looks like that's exactly what happened, they introduced a Skilled Worker visa with no quota.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here - I'm not really taking a position one way or another on whether the Tories would/could have reduced immigration, and they certainly didn't deliver on that. I was just pretty flabbergasted at the time by the blanket misunderstandings of the system that was being talked about, seemingly from all sides. I didn't vote for them either way :shrug:
I think it's important to understand the context, which is where my initial reply was aimed at: > Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019. Taken with that context, it's important to understand the manifesto to realise they didn't really "promise" to reduce immigration. > I was just pretty flabbergasted at the time by the blanket misunderstandings of the system A lot of blam…
Just to clarify on this point, I didn't mean "you" as in literally "you," I intended this in the informal "you" that's used in British English to indirectly refer to a group of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's important to understand the context, which is where my initial reply was aimed at: > Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019. Taken with that context, it's important to understand the manifesto to realise they didn't really "promise" to reduce immigration. > I was just pretty flabbergasted at the time by the blanket misunderstandings of the system A lot of blam…
> I didn't vote for them either way :shrug: Just to clarify on this point, I didn't mean "you" as in literally "you," I intended this in the informal "you" that's used in British English to indirectly refer to a group of people.
Won’t the government force these websites to do some kind of stronger identity verification in the future? I worry that it’ll even come with broader support when the EU or whoever implements ID verification for protecting children or banning misinformation or whatever.
>Won’t the government force these websites to do some kind of stronger identity verification in the future? These heckin' kids needs more protection. I suggest banning all VPNs too, only this way kids are truly protected like they are in China and Iran.
This way they will know for sure that it was you who upload your id. Then they will need someone else to watch the camera in case it gets tampered with.