Re: Still Bullshit
Depending on whether you view the CCP as virtuous or cretinous, there's less or more bullshit respectively from it on topics that reflect poorly on said government.
681 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Feb 2023
I don't think the Act requires any quality for posts but, if it did, it would be even worse. The sort of person who believes laws can be used to prevent "shit" posts fills me with the same type of dread as someone who, seeing a mouse scurrying around, enthusiastically loads a machine pistol.
I'm pretty sure the installing equipment relates to someone putting in a spy camera. While there would be issues for CCTV installers, I expect the purpose is to nab people who set up cameras in locations like changing rooms but are caught before anything personal is recorded.
At the same time, overly broad laws are often abused to the benefit of the rich and powerful.
So, where are these so-called adults getting the idea that being sexually attracted to children is not an evil act. This doesn't make sense; it's just not in the natural order of things.
The evil act is the abuse. The attraction is almost immaterial as far as the evil, in the sense that it makes little difference to the victim what desire drove the abuser. As deeply unpleasant as I find it, I would prefer if people with those attractions felt at ease seeking help before they act on them because the alternative is sacrificing at least one child to 'detect' them.
I suggest you re-read Karl Popper (it's barely more than 200 words). "Intolerance" doesn't mean ideas that we, in the modern day, describe as 'intolerant', it means an intolerance for peaceful discussion. By jumping the gun you, ironically, are starting to meet Popper's definition. It's perfectly fine to have your own ideas about how you should respond to people engaging in speech you find objectionable but please own your ideals, rather than hiding behind a distorted version of Popper.
I have no love for the far right but it's hard to claim that the tactic of chasing them off platforms has led to anything but huge electoral upsets. Pointing out a lie is infinitely more effective than gagging the liar.
Yes but these chemicals are man-made [spooky noises].
In all seriousness, it's a valid point but the concern is that these might do different things to the atmosphere. As far as I'm aware, it's currently unknown what they might do and to what extent but there have been a range of proposals based on small scale experiments and simulations.
It might be harmless, it might not and it might be an easy fix or it might mean weighing the environmental cost of every ton we send up.
All safety regulations are written in blood and, while I do not discount their overall validity, hastily written regulations often have unintended consequences. In the case of the Titanic, the regulations imposed in consequence led directly to the SS Eastland disaster.
By this I mean to say that equal evaluation should be given for any proposed replacements for materials of concern as well as balancing the wider impact of issues that curtail space activity.
If you covet totalitarianism, remember that for every Stalin, there's a lot of Trotskys and, by definition, you're much more likely to end up as the latter.
Not that Trotsky wasn't a brutal totalitarian too, his main complaint was that Stalin wasn't brutalising the 'right' people and he only changed his tune after losing out on the opportunity to do so to an entire nation.
Chinese cartographic paranoia is extreme, to the point that their geodetic datum (GCJ-02) is intentionally distorted in a pseudo-random fashion to frustrate map making exercises.
It's unlikely the charges are a sign they specifically captured anything sensitive, since any private map making in China is illegal without the consent and involvement of the government. They've even arrested and fined geology students. It's also a nice little money spinner for the government, since even using their wonky coordinate system (the only system that is legal to use in the country) requires a licensing fee.
I think that limits you to hydroelectric built with 19th Century techniques. Wind turbines produce huge amounts of composite waste (unless you want to run a literal wind mill) and solar creates heavy metal wastes. Both of these are harmful to humans and, unlike radioactive isotopes, heavy metals will never decay into something less harmful.
End-to-end, modern nuclear has a lower carbon footprint than anything but hydroelectric built under very specific conditions; namely, reservoirs built on rocky terrain in cold climates. That doesn't mean we should abandon these technologies but we should be realistic about their impact rather than going 'oooh radiation scary'.
The translation could be making it a little murky but it could be entrance skin dose, which is basically all the radiation the individual was exposed to, rather than the radiation that was absorbed. This is handy to know because the absorbed dose calculations might not take back scatter into account when calculating the absorbed dose. However, it's still a surprisingly large difference.
-criminals use E2EE to facilitate crimes
-E2EE cannot be completely banned without seriously limiting the Internet
-not having E2EE puts me at greater risk from criminals
-politicians admit they cannot entirely combat crime if criminals use E2EE
Therefore, banning E2EE will not make me safer. If it is possible to backdoor encrypted communications but keep it safe from criminals, the politicians proposing such measures can demonstrate it for a few years by using it themselves for their most sensitive communications. In fact, go one better: they can put cameras around their homes (even in the bedroom and bathroom) with the stream entirely accessible to anyone but secured with a key held under the same conditions they propose for our escrowed keys.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I probably wasn't clear and didn't mean that it's a ploy to make more money for big business, I meant that it's not wholly against their interests to repeal it.
For the sake of transparency, I should say that I'm a hobbyist tinkerer and getting things like machine parts from aliexpress and similar lets me affordably pursue my hobbies. I remember the dark days before these sites got the ability to pay their customs, you could often end up paying Royal Mail more for the privilege than the value of the customs or, sometimes, more than the base value of the item if they were feeling particularly loopy (for mistakes, you had a choice of paying or returning, which works for big businesses leaving RM holding the can for the customs payment but is greatly imbalanced against the individual). The alternative was a UK importer/stockist, who would often charge an outrageous markup (because the item was too niche even for Maplin/RS) or lumping it because your requirement was beyond the point of commercial viability for a business to import and stock.
I personally equate buying silver earrings off those sites to buying them off a guy at the pub or out the back of a white van: if they're selling 'silver' jewellery below the market rate of base silver, it feels like it's on the buyer. I suppose there is self-interest there but it does feel a bit like hobbyists being told that their hobbies are less important than someone who can't think critically before paying for tat.
Just because a provision is beneficial to one corporation that does not mean repealing it will necessarily be beneficial to the individual. The jobs created by repealing de minimis will not be manufacturing but rather a handful of warehouse workers at corporations that are large enough to maintain an inventory stateside, taking advantage of the economies of scale on import processing fees.
While Amazon likely profits more from de minimis, they are still well placed to be a major player in profiting off a repeal, as they currently are in Europe, because their warehouses and ability to harvest purchase data for predictive inventory management gives them an edge over smaller businesses. For very specialist items which are too niche for large corporations to care about, the consumer ends up paying more in processing fees than actual duties.
I think the reason Eddie the Eagle enjoyed more praise is because there were no other British ski jumping Olympic applicants. In this case, there were plenty of other Australian applicants and, whether there was foul play in the selection process (unlikely) or not, there is a feeling that she potentially 'stood in the way' of someone who might have done better.
She had a doctorate in the subject. Specifically, the title of her thesis was "Deterritorializing gender in Sydney's breakdancing scene: a B-girl's experience of B-boying". Sadly, for Australia's Olympic dreams, no one thought to look into whether 'deterritorializing' required one to be proficient at breakdancing.
Those figures are from the IEA. The average age of a car on the road in France in 2021 was 10.5 years so, while you might see older cars, they're not representative. The age figure is from an automotive lobby group but please feel free to provide competing figures if you feel those figures are more accurate:
https://www.acea.auto/figure/average-age-of-eu-vehicle-fleet-by-country/
Please also provide hard data that you feel is more accurate to support your guesstimate if you doubt the accuracy of the previous post.
36mpg seems incredibly low. The average fuel economy for purely petrol driven (not including hybrids) LDVs in France in 2019 was 5.8l/100km or 17km/l or 48Impg
https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-france
I'd also point out that diesel achieves, on average, better fuel economy and, thanks to strike-inclined truckers, is cheaper per litre in France.