Neither actually, according to the article. They are afraid the customers who let AI loose on their own accounts will withdraw too much deposits to invest so that the banks can't give out loans anymore. I wish I were making this up...

Diplomat is kind of understating it though.

Also towards your earlier point, I always took her brash attitude as intentionally annoying. Like that's the whole point of it, narratively. It's a tool she uses to unsettle others. Which is why it fits so nicely in the OP.

Not disputing that, just saying this one is mostly on the Saudis for overestimating their air defence (yet again).

True, but to switch metaphors Trump may have been the domino that fell a few stones back, but the ones currently tipping each other over are SA and the Houthis. Can't absolve the Saudis from being warned, doing it anyway, and getting exactly what they were promised, all inside of a day, by saying Trump started it all several months back...

Hate to defend Trump, but in this he is kind of innocent. Saudia Arabia was attacking Yemen well before the Iran war started. Plus the timeline of events here is something like this:

• Yesterday Houthis said "if you attack our oil infrastructure here is a list of retaliation targets"
• Then Saudi Arabia attacked Houthi oil infrastructure anyway
• Then Houthis attacked the targets they previously listed

Besides the Aramco HQ in Dhahran, there were also refineries in the area that were attacked, plus at least three sites in and around Riyadh were attacked as well.

Source: https://yemen.liveuamap.com/en/2026/13-october-13-the-houthis-have-announced-the-locations-they

It's a duckduckgo shorthand (called bangs) to search directly on Wikipedia.

From my totally uninformed non-lawyer knowledge: It's more or less safe to ignore random letters from German lawyers until they are forwarded to you by a German court (usually in a yellow(?) envelope).

Oh damn. I meant their website, but I didn't notice they just embed a Twitch stream on their website, thought it was a self-hosted stream. Never mind me.

Well that website links to livestream.eff.org, and that page says the stream will be "simulcast", i.e. mirrored, to Twitch and Youtube. So the main channel is indeed free.

You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?

We’ve settled the matter that its not her beer. And I’m calling it sexism because it is. Since the beer matter is settled, the only thing left of your argument is that because she is a smaller person, she should be allowed to use a degree of violence that he shouldn’t.

I never made that argument, plus there are three more arguments literally in the sentence before this quote. Which you, again, ignored.

But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you[r] entire critique would no longer stand.

If a 150kg/2m woman was womanhandling a 60kg/1.4m man after he rejected her, very likely ending in a traumatic brain injury? Yes my critique would still fucking stand! What the fuck is wrong with you?

I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else’s drink, really under any circumstances.

Well you keep assuming that it's his drink in this video. Pretty big fucking assumption right there. What if it's her drink? If that was the case he tries to steal her beer, and then proceeds to beat her for trying to get it back. Even it was his, you are still defending the use of disproportionate, potentially lethal violence in self-defence.

Again. Lets switch up the gender roles.

If you want it to be a fruitful thought exercise equalise their genders, keeping in mind that the bigger and more aggressive person here has just been rejected.

The woman, remaining seated, both fe[e]t remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.

Ignoring the potential theft of a beer before, throw in the face of a beer before, and that afterwards he got up and literally kicked her while down, before slamming her head into a wooden bench. Absolute paragon of virtue over here. /s

If you think this was appropriate and measured self-defence you have a problem. You constantly excuse or ignore his escalations, while condemning hers.

I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence.

Uhu.

No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a “soft pass” on the escalation ladder because of their gender.

Then why are you constantly giving the man a pass? In your post above you counted 1/3 "escalation points" for the man and woman respectively, ignoring three from the man, explaining them away as self-defence. But if look at it all in sequence (and again, just grant your count of her escalations, which I have arguments about) they both escalate:

Beer grab (she escalates)
Beer throw (he escalates)
Slap (she escalates)
Shove and slap (he escalates)
Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation)
Bottle grab (she escalates)
Throat punches head into bench (he escalates)

However, the possibility of it being her beer, the fact she doesn't charge him with the bottle, on the contrary he charges her to deliver the throat punch, plus the provided context of this being her rejecting him, all paint a picture of this being retaliatory violence. You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?

She does hit the left side of her head against that bench when she falls around second 16, and holds it with her hand when she gets back up.