851–860 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It already happened in LA in June. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/general-involved-in-trumps-l-a-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school. Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it. Even normal companies don't care about customer…
Decades? Generation? Make a good argument if you are going to make one. We are talking a few years here, say 12, 14, 16 to 18, and they get a steady customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win. As a rule of thumb, governments don't take actions which reduce their power.
They do if they are libertarian governments. Although it's popular to pretend they don't exist, there are plenty of examples of governments reducing their power over history. The American government is a good example of this having originally bound itself by a constitution that limits its own power. And Britain has in the past gone through deregulatory phases and shrunk the state. Unfortunately at this time Britain d…
Excuse me, WHAT?! I can't imagine what else you could write to signal so clearly that nobody should take anything you write seriously.
Even Labour barely comes across as center-left anymore. The Tories have never been.
I would hope that the LibDems and the Greens would strongly oppose this use of the OSA, but I haven't seen that they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The American government is a good example of this having originally bound itself by a constitution that limits its own power Since its foundation, has the US government ever actually reduced its powers? It established itself with limited power.. But since then, its power has only increased via amendments, to the point where the President is effectively an uncontested emperor type figure.
If you define the US as the federal government then yes it has rolled back its powers several times: - The Prohibition was implemented and then ended, i.e. the state gave up its power to ban alcohol. - The Bill of Rights itself post-dates the founding of the USA. Those amendments were limiting the power of the state! - Income tax rates were once much higher than they are today. Of course you could argue that this isn…
I'm confused.. can't they appeal High Court decisions (since the UKSC was formed after the government didn't like the High Court's decisions in the Diego Garcia thing)? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
(And you'd usually appeal to the Court of Appeal first.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Political systems do not exist in a vacuum, but integrate into a specific ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape. In a nation of immigrants with frequent demographic changes, having a written constitution anchors the country and prevents some capture of the government.
The UK and US are both equally nations of immigrants in 2025 at about 16% of the population being born abroad. The UK constitution is written but uncodified and unites the country under the King. The constitution can slowly change to deal with immigration, but in the US they're stuck with either what you have or violent revolution...
The US political regime was designed for stability by lawyers, which has worked quite well for the country so far. In the case of the UK, the lack of a constitution can also be quite dangerous as it allows abuse and doesn't guarantee any protection of basic rights or even democracy. This can work well if the country is mono-ethnic, with elites and plebeians sharing a common culture. It can also easily derail in pluri-cultural settings where ethnicities compete against each other to impose their standards or acquire resources from the state. This is what happens in Africa, for instance, and one of the reasons for the weakness of the state there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, "digital credentials" is an awful idea because it requires to store your ID on your phone and thus make it accessible to Apple and Google and secret courts. What I suggest is simply to store a single "isAdult" bit on device, without revealing any identity, and make apps like browser do the censorship on device, without sending any data to a webite. The algorithm is as follows: if isAdult == 0 and website doesn't…
I think you misunderstood how the digital credentials api works. It keeps it in your phone’s secure element and lets you share just a “yes/no” proof like “over 18” without revealing anything else. It’s basically the cryptographically secure version of the isAdult bit you’re describing. It also has trust by cryptographically signing the proof and it can handle different jurisdictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>The UK didn't want unlimited immigration from the EU, It was never unlimited and it's yet another lie peddled by Farage and the Brexit campaign. UK could have always at the very least enforced the basic of the EU free movement principles in terms of limitations - namely that anyone without a job or means to provide for themselves for over 3 months can be kicked out. That would have solved most of the discontent aro…
The concerns of voters were absolutely not respected, you are completely right about that. The political class is completely bought into mass migration being a moral good, which is why getting it under control requires a complete replacement of that political class. There were lots of things the UK could have done in theory which wouldn't have had any impact in reality. You can interview people and ask, do you have f…
We got internal migration from other EU countries (eastern Europe, Spain, Italy mostly) with much higher living standards. EU migrants are much more likely to return to their home countries after a period saving some cash and practising English.
But even that was too much for the poor old Brits.
Now we have people from African war zones and Indian villages and they are NEVER going back voluntarily. France isn't bothered any more because we behaved like spoiled children during Brexit, they wave them off on the Normandy beaches.
After burning bridges with Europe the only solution for the illegals is to go full Nazi and sink their boats in the channel like Farage wants to. Even if he somehow became PM I don't see that happening.
Anyway, legal migration is by far the biggest source, and those are mostly Indian villagers that are happy to have an inside toilet and not be fried by 40c+ heat most of the year. They are here forever too. BTW, a lot of Indians in the UK at the time were really happy about Brexit, i wonder why...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many western democracies where there no single ruling party. 'The government' is made by an alliance of many different parties (eg: 25% + 15% + 10% + 5%.) They might share a common overall view of the world but each party can have a very different take on many subjects. The actual government has to do only what all of them agree upon, and the 5% party may have a disproportionate weight because that party le…
This is not working. A few decades later the biggest party is like 50% of the politicians. My theory is that power accumulates like money so you end up having few people with all the power. It's not that original, I must've read it somewhere.
Edit: Spain too. Probably every single European country except the UK.