It sounds like they asked about specific parties being banned. 16% even said Labour…

Without seeing the full survey it’s hard to gauge, but seems like it might’ve been odd phrasing.

Disregarding that, I think I agree with the majority here. Reform are, sadly, a legitimate political party in the UK, who even have seats in Parliament. I don’t feel we should be targeting individual political parties with freedom of speech restrictions, at least not on a national level. Students and staff getting their universities to bar them would be fine. Perhaps an odd distinction, but I think it’s an important one.

Unfortunately it seems very much a mixed bag. For some the more recent patches did a lot, for others they broke things.

(Sadly on Windows) The same happened to me. Decent performance around release, later updates messed it all up. That said I think the latest update did make it run better than ever on my machine, but obviously YMMV.

I do think they’re working on it, they just seem to be lost? It should be a big deal for Capcom if Monster Hunter loses popularity due to performance.

Looking at the original article in The Independent, it’s pretty clear he is not at all aiming for a pact with Labour. Only when “pressed” about one did he say explicitly he would consider it but never with current Labour-right… Which as you say is re-stating his stance of wanting to replace, not ally with Labour. It’s a diplomatic “no, we only ally with more like-minded people”.

The title from The Canary feels like it overstates the case, but it is still what Polanski said in the end. It does also more strongly push the idea that Labour going back to the left would be better for them than stating it with the original caveats, so I assume that’s deliberate.

Doesn’t quite check those boxes, but it definitely sounds like a game that was based on Defend Your Castle, from back in the days of Flash games.

Ok, I genuinely might be reading this wrong and the other guy won’t communicate, so:

The way I read that is “we will have a button that’s there that you can click to activate an AI feature” (though it’s unclear if that’s actually what it’ll be like when finalised). And yeah, I’d rather that was an extension or something I’d go and toggle on if I wanted. That said, I also don’t consider that to be “on by default”.

And before anyone misunderstands more, I hate the addition of AI in everything and don’t think Firefox should do this. That’s not the point I’m arguing.

I mean it seems to me the opt-in part is when they say it will be opt-in by it potentially being a button on the toolbar. Though the dev acknowledges not everyone will see that as opt-in.

Source: https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782

I can understand why people have issues with that, but let’s at least keep criticisms to what they’ve actually said?

It’s only fair the logs (or Ewoks) also get the Warhammer treatment.

Some potential options:

• strap some propulsion on the ends of the logs
  • upgrade to warp drives to use them against space vessels
• the logs are tougher than any metal and heavier to boot
• warp fuckery means the logs ignore armour or directly affect the people inside in some way (feel free to add chaos god shenanigans)
• Ewoks believe the logs will work and they have the numbers to affect reality
• the logs just hold the walker for the split second it takes to get swarmed by Ewoks or otherwise dealt with
• the logs explode
• Ewoks are all force users now

Though let’s be honest: even with all that, the Ewoks probably would’ve been one of the countless species wiped out during the Great Crusade. 40k does have some argument for having only the most over the top shit existing.

Yeah, fuck those poor old women, they’re religious…

Idk, regardless of my thoughts on religion and organised religion especially, I can see that these people are human. They seem to be oppressed and haven’t done anything to deserve that. We should be able to feel sympathy for them, and appreciate that their story being shared is the attention they need to have extra protection at the very least.

Note the confidence that point was said with. What you say will not come to pass, as Elmo clearly has perfect knowledge of the future

Trust the all-knowing Elmo. He’s your friend, forever and always.

Nobody was proposing taking land from them though.

I mean just the Peel Commission on its own was abandoned because it would have required displacing a large number of Arabs. Palestine was 3% Jewish in 1917. You can see why a 20-80 split could be a problem.

Scepticism is a good thing but this information is just basic history and is freely available on Wikipedia and other sources.

I agree. My issue was with your original link. I mentioned the Balfour Declaration because it’s a pretty good starting point on Wikipedia that I had read myself.

memes on social media like the OP that present a totally made up version of history in order to promote a political agenda

To me, OP’s post reads as a political cartoon that captures sentiment at the current moment. Not to mention the part where Palestine wasn’t given/offered independent statehood during the creation of Israel, so in some ways that is true as well.

Also none of that really changes the fact that Palestine finally getting statehood when most of its land is lost and its people are victims of an ongoing genocide seems far too late. Whether the people who represented Palestine in the past shoulder some blame for not making concessions is an interesting conversation, but it doesn’t matter much for the message OP is conveying in my opinion.

But again, I’m no historian. I’m not even someone who has enough time to really research this and present a properly informed opinion. Just some random guy who thought your original link seemed pretty superficial and biased.

Well that’s kinda missing the context of the Balfour Declaration, especially within the larger historical framework of the First World War, the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

That was pretty recent history for the first offer in your link. I’m not exactly surprised Palestinians wanted all their land back at the time.

Couple sources would also do that magazine a favour. Not that I’d trust it anyway with that tone of writing and being so brief about complex geopolitical history. At least include who did the rejection and with what reasoning.

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the topic and all. I just happened to come in here from c/all and thought I might learn something interesting from your link, but it really seems like it’s missing too much for that.

Agreed. As another commenter says, in Glasgow the football team might just matter, and considering how things go: fair enough.

But this specific case was actually not about who the candidate supported, that’s just what the judge brought up as an example. I’d say it wasn’t even about not drinking, that’s what the candidate alleged. But the ruling seems like it would apply to all of those cases as precedent anyway.

By law, technically, yes. But that’s the trick: you say you didn’t hire someone because you think they wouldn’t fit the team. In reality, it’s because of their religion or ethnicity or gender. Officially though, you say it’s because they wouldn’t join in for drinks on Friday. “I just didn’t vibe with them”.

Of course this has caveats. It’ll only be possible between two equally qualified candidates, but that can be subjective as well.

Also this specific candidate was not hired because the employer said they didn’t vibe with them. The football team is an example used by the judge. The not drinking and being introverted was used by the candidate. It’s a weak case. I don’t think the candidate had much to stand on, but the judge’s ruling is way too generic is what my point is.

For football teams? Sure, maybe.

But that’s not the main point in the case, is it? To me this decision seems like it says you could decide not to hire someone because they don’t drink (since that’s basically what was being argued). Couldn’t that then be used to legally discriminate against, say, Muslims? Or people more committed to family than work?

Oh damn, I was going to get a heart attack if you hadn’t posted, so perfectly timed from my perspective. Thanks for the reminder!

Not really a surprise. Obviously cost of living, home prices, wage stagnation, etc are pretty bad right now. Labour is kicking in austerity again. Future prospects look uncertain.

In general, it’s hard to find a job. It’s honestly hard enough to meet new people sometimes, as the article suggests.

Not the first time of course in history, but the way people know about and relate to the world is different. Plus contraception and abortion are more reliable and accessible than ever (to be clear, this is not a negative).

I’m in my late 20s, most of my friends are in their mid 20s. Most don’t want children, usually due to their own physical and mental health concerns, but also just due to the socioeconomic and political situation. The ones that do are trying to find a decent place to live and get a job that pays enough to support children. That takes time, you actually need to move up the corporate ladder now, at least if you want to give your children what you had while growing up or better (all uni graduates, mostly from what we’d consider middle class backgrounds).

But of course at the end of the day: does this even matter? Does not having enough births to replace deaths change a thing? Does not wanting children really mean anything?

Of course I bring up a lot of issues, but most of my friends wouldn’t want children even in a perfect situation. Sure, it’ll pressure the social safety nets maybe down the line, but perhaps that is just inevitable and we should be looking at modernising our systems instead. Who knew 50-150 year old ideas wouldn’t hold up forever?

The wealthy need consumers, but as a society could comfortably live with a lot more and a lot fewer people.

I feel like this should be an official EU petition like Stop Killing Games as well. Have lawmakers actually tell payment processors that they have no right to deny legal transactions (not just fictional content, but any legal transaction).

Phineas Gage if anyone wants to look the case up. Classic psychology and neurology tale.

Of course this happened before modern scientific standards and procedures were mainstream, so take everything with a grain of salt.

As others have mentioned, I don’t think Labour will do well in the next election based on what they’ve been doing so far. So voting for “third” parties is inevitable. It’s just a question of whether we can get a majority of progressives, or we just end up spread out and Reform sweeps the win.

I think maybe the ideal solution would be if the progressive parties formed some sort of coalition ahead of time, centred around electoral reform. Discuss who contests which seats, etc, and how they’d vote as a coalition.

Well the most ideal would be if they did that with the express purpose of getting electoral reform done and then calling a general election right after. That way even conservatives and right wingers might vote for them.

It really is past the time when Britain finally went through some actual changes.