You know what? that's fair.

I entirely missed that comment, my bad.

I don't think idealism against the idea of violence is the answer, given..you know....people, but i'm all for not making it the first port of call.

Unless you're suggesting teaching kindergarten girls to hit boys will repair their self esteem or pride, im not sure why it's necessary to make gender a variable here.

Ah, that makes sense, so that bring me back to another reply i posted at the start.

It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch,** because it only applies in certain circumstances**. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.

It only applies in certain circumstances, because that's how it was implemented.

If a public broadcasting tax is what they want, then they should introduce it that way, not a slow creep of additional conditions and charges like some shitty subscription service .

It makes it look like they are too cowardly to just make it a universal mandatory tax.

The tax idea you suggest is a reasonable approach, but it isn't how it currently works, which is why i was saying that it's very specifically about if the individual meets the criteria that exist right now.

That is partially true.

The problem with LLM's specifically is that it's built upon such a huge foundation of shittiness.

To get to the nuance you have to ignore basically all of the horrible shit.

At the risk of an early invoking of godwin's law, it's like trying to have a nuanced conversation about hitlers politics.

Just because you might be willing to handwave the bullshit away so you can have the nuanced conversation you want that doesn't mean everybody is willing to do the same.

There's a difference between "not recognising that nuance exists" and "not wanting (or being able) to engage in nuance because that requires glossing over horrible shit".

so.....the extended consequences of rampant capitalism ?

well...rampant "people gonna people" but capitalism is the current favoured expression of that.

Aw, so close, you were supposed to block me.

All you'll get from me is words you don't understand in sentences too long for you to keep in context.

Tell you what, you've been working hard, i'll help you with this last bit.

There you go, I knew you could do it, well done.

ah,ok, i followed most of that and it makes sense.

Thanks for the explanation

Storing a childs' tracing of the mona lisa in a vault is a form of preservation, doesn't make it useful outside of very specific contexts.

That's hyperbole of course, but slop conversions are a facsimile of greatly varying quality.

genuine question, how did you know it was byte identical if you only had a partial backup ?

See, this is the dedication im talking about.

You see more then one person disagreeing with you and suddenly it's a bunch of alt accounts all ganging up on you.

It probably didn't even enter your mind that you might be wrong.

Thats the kind of dedication to sub-par thought processes you just don't see everyday.

Cursory check of account histories to see if they show any signs of overlap?

Hah, no, must be a conspiracy.

Re-read the comment chain, just in case you might have missed something?

Hell no, single user conspiracy against you is the obvious cause.

This is the kind of single minded pursuit of the "truth" that the internet is lacking nowadays.

I'd give you a slow clap but with your level of demonstrated perception, you might think in trying to attack you or something.

Anyway, good luck with life, sounds like it might be a bit of a struggle.

Edit: I realise that's probably a lot of text for you to read in one sitting, don't push yourself, if it's too much, just reply with an excuse and block me. That way nobody will know. Mental health is important

Tripling down on that whoosh.

Thats a level of dedication you don't see often these days.

This was a remake of the og.

I'd argue a combination of bad design and/or bad implementation, which i would consider different things.

It's a difference that becomes more pronounced the larger the team grows.

A somewhat reasonable design can be absolutely destroyed by a poor implementation of that design

^something^ ^something^ ....magnets

Can’t blame the gov for everything.

True, but in the case of a well publicised and documented failure of multiple generations of government, a case in which they have already admitted culpability and are (very slowly) working to redress, i don't need to blame them, blame is firmly established.

Feel free to look it up, it's in the article.

The logic is simple to follow, i'll lay it out in steps

• If he was already a citizen , the issue of deportation wouldn't exist.
• By the sounds of it, it seems he should have already been a citizen long before this happened.
• The reason for him not already being a citizen is governmental incompetence (or malice, i suppose)

All of that is assuming, of course, that he is one of the people affected by said government fuckup, which again, it seems like he is.

Is he a nice person? no idea

Does he deserve the rules to be applied evenly to him? absolutely.

Interesting, seems they did in fact put him on a plane, he came back because barbados refused him entry (due to him being a long time resident of the UK)

It also sounds like he should already be a de-facto citizen but isn't because of long term governmental incompetence.

I will preface this with :

• ACAB
• The current legal system is corrupt in it's uneven application
• legality and ethics/morals are subjective and not always the same thing.

So know that im not defending the legal system here, just stating that weak/innacurate arguments weaken whatever position you try to build upon them.

Planning a violent crime, even with intent, isn't considered a violent crime in and of itself, as it involves no violence.

Intent and action are different things, which is why there are separate names and crimes.

The argument that they deserve the same punishment is interesting though and (I think) sometimes valid.

If deportation is a named consequence of the crime(either part of the sentence or a consequence of having a criminal record of that nature) then they should have been deported immediately.

If it is not, then they have paid for their crime and tagging consequences on after the fact is vigilante behaviour.

To be clear, im not arguing against vigilante justice here, just pointing out that it would be extra-judicial, making whoever preformed that action a criminal as well.

By definition it's less dangerous.

One involves the violence, one is the planning of the violence (with no actual violence having happened).

It implies multiple parties and the intent to commit the violence in the future, but the violence hasn't happened yet.

If they were the same ting there wouldn't be a separate term and or crime.

It sounds like you want to argue that the planning (with intent) should carry the same sentence and repercussions, which is an entirely valid argument, have at it.

Pretending that planning and execution are the same exact level of danger serves only to undermine what might otherwise be a well reasoned argument.

Prior to LLM's ? shitty product management.

After LLM's ? still shitty product management, but now faster and with additional climate change.