They can have a little bit of sea, as a treat(y).

Omfg, this line killed me xD

people in the UK want lower food prices, but don’t want to be part of the EU common market

Yup, it’s pretty dumb. But the way the majority feels is that they’ve had these arguments about Brexit for some many years they’re basically done at this point.

And they want more doctors and dentists, but less immigration.

Interestingly, even Reform, the most pro-brexit anti-immigration send everyone to Rwanda party still wants exceptions for doctors, dentists and nurses to allow them to come into the country at will. They are very much considered the exception for immigration.

He’s right. There just isn’t the political will in the population to reopen the topic of Brexit now. Whether anyone likes it or not, the things British people really care about right now, in no particular order, are:

• Inflation

• House & utility & food prices

• Immigration

• NHS waiting lists & more dentists

• Train infrastructure.

People can make very legitimate arguments linking Brexit to those issues, but it’s not politically viable to open that can of worms again. They just really want their lives to improve for the first time in over a decade.

There’s also the fact that a hypothetical end to US aid wouldn’t end EU aid. It’s definitely not on the same scale as the US due to our much smaller military sector, but that’d likely change in the event of a US shut-down of aid.

In my mind, the most likely results would be:

Short-term: Very dangerous period for Ukraine, they lose some ground, lots of men (similar to the last time they had a crippling artillery shell shortage).

Medium-term: EU military sector slowly ramps up to meet demand, as about 3/4 of central & eastern EU considers this an existential war that cannot be lost at any cost.

Long-term: After the war is over (however many more years that takes), Russia finally negotiates some kind of ceasefire where they can save some face internally and brag about how they “Denazified” Ukraine while going home and accomplishing nothing, EU is much more self-sufficient and therefore buys less from the US, and they aren’t seen as a trust-worthy ally militarily anymore. Even if on paper most EU members are still in NATO, they consider the security guarantees of the EU as much more important and serious.

It’s not a civil war and I don’t think it’ll become one. The modern US isn’t geographically separated enough to have any sort of cohesive movement locally. There’s no north vs south playing out, for example.

Instead, what you have is a slow-rolling coup and social instability.

As far as I understand the decision (IANAL!), the definition of what constitutes an “Official Act” is left intentionally undefined, so in effect you can only claim this ultimate power if the courts like you in order to declare what you’re doing official.

This means, if I understand it correctly, king powers for Trump and nothing for Biden. They’d just rule everything Biden is doing as not an official act.

Btw, After staring at it for a while I can kinda switch between red and white at will. Anyone else?

No, that doesn’t seem to work for me, but after messing with zooming in, I can absolutely see it’s white if I’m all the way zoomed in on the black and white pixels in the can, and then as I slowly zoom out, there’s a specific moment when there’s enough of the surrounding blue that the can suddenly turns red.

The can remains black and white in my perception as long as I’m sufficiently zoomed in on it without the background. It’s a pretty neat effect.

So basically the Lemmy version of Subreddit Simulator, but allowing users as well?

Yes, absolutely. That is a concern that I too share, fellow meat being. We should be vigilant against superior, more capable, and really friendly artificial intelligences.

The Romania link is kinda misleading. That isn’t a big government problem: that’s a profit crushing laypeople problem. Both the communist Romanian government and the capitalist government that followed wanted to profit from many different mines even though it would destroy nearby villages.

Rosia Montana is still very controversial today. A different mine, but the same core reasoning and issues.

What is an example of something that is not self-regulated that was worked out well?

EU food industry works pretty well. Incidences of food-borne disease, contaminated food, etc are very rare, and you can generally trust the label says exactly what’s in the food with confidence.

The regulations themselves are very complex, change depending on new evidence, and include all sorts of rule changes for events that impact the food industry.

How do you ever solve a problem if you don’t acknowledge it exists?

I’m not from the US, but live in a country that is a US ally with a lot of military bases. The US election effects us. The fact the DNC is fielding an old age pensioner who should be sitting comfortably in a retirement home complaining about the birds obstructing his view against an equally old fascist is deeply worrying.

Technically, yes. Practically, it’s complicated. It doesn’t really exist within the same ecosystem as other Linux distros.

It’s not as different as Android (which is also technically a Linux distribution), but running a normal DE and all the programs that come with it is very clearly still an advanced user thing locked behind knowledge of how bash and virtual environments work.

Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?

I’m not a lawyer, first of all! I’m not very knowledgeable either.

Mens rea, as far as I understand it, definitely doesn’t apply here. Bringing it into question undermines the case if you’re trying to build a conviction around it. Better to have a wide variety of provable smaller claims than one big ticket item you’re doomed to fail, as far as I understand it.

Never happening, but even if it was wouldn’t the correct charge be criminal negligence? It’s not like the companies killed those people in a calculated, pre-meditated way. They’re “just” externalities.

Does it come with a coupon for their hitman service too?

destroying paintings and monoliths

But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

hay, grass or silage

All of the above, as well as other feeds such as corn. That percentage includes pastures and growing crops for feed. Here’s a pretty good breakdown.

Interestingly enough, if someone doesn’t care at all about veganism but wants to reduce agricultural land use, removing beef, lamb and dairy from their diet would be enough to get there (while continuing to eat chicken, fish, etc).

sweeping, emotional appeals

I don’t think my comment was very emotionally charged.

Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that

The power of an argument is determined by the reader. There’s compelling reasons in terms of zoonotic diseases and rampant antibiotic use, there’s other reasons from a moral point of view, there’s others in terms of environment (like this argument), there’s others in terms of human health, etc. Which one is convincing to which person depends entirely on what that person cares about.

Yeah, that does sound very comparable to what I was talking about. Your example and mine both do not have the state deciding what university you apply to though, which is what I understood from “the state decides what you’ll study”.