You know what? I think this is justified usage. The average person won't have a good way to interpret joules or watts, especially on the 16-18 gigawatt scale. Props they include the actual number in the article btw.

Things do go a bit downhill from there admittedly.

I should clarify: in universe, not the writing or craziness.

Yeah, logged in this morning just to check. Didn't play a mission so can't say there aren't any issues, but EAC doesn't just forbid you from playing.

I was talking about this same idea with a friend recently. We have orgs like GCHQ and there's plenty of cybersecurity and data talent in the UK. The government could make our own actual, secure systems. Provide setup and support for non-gov entities in the UK if they want to have government-approved security for a fee if we need the funding.

Plenty of options for the details in terms of finances, open-sourcing, letting (vetted) private healthcare users connect, etc.

There's no need to always put things out for private companies to make.

Ok, at this point I have to ask: did I miss some news about someone saying they'd call the next GE early? Otherwise it's about 2.5 years away, and we're talking polls, coalitions, and promises from Labour about electoral reform and revisiting Brexit already.

I'd like to see more news about what is being planned before the next election.

I don't want to put words in their mouth or explain away what they said, so I will quote Wikipedia:

They said that their reference to the demonisation of rape concerned stereotypes surrounding perpetrators, arguing that rapists did not necessarily conform to a particular image and that such stereotypes could prevent victims from being believed, going on to explain that their reference to a spectrum concerned what they regarded as narrow legal and societal definitions of rape and sexual violence.

Which is based on a Telegraph article:

“The point I made about demonisation was that not all rapists fit a stereotype, and that all kinds of men can and do commit it.

“The vast majority of sexual violence is from men who the victims know personally. Victims should be believed regardless of who the perpetrator was, and rapists should be punished in the strongest terms.

“When talking about a spectrum I was making the point that laws often take a narrow definition of what rape and sexual violence is, which often allows it to continue without consequence. A full viewing of the interview clarifies this.

“In a country where rape has the lowest conviction rates of any crime, and reoffending continues, this is an urgent and important conversation we need to have in Scotland. Any suggestion that my statements minimise or excuse rape or sexual assault are deeply false and misleading.”

My personal impression would be this is getting at things like marital rape, but it's not clarified further here, and I don't have time to watch a full interview.

At face value though, all I get from this is they didn't mean anything malicious and they are definitely not a rape apologist, which is what a lot of the discourse around the topic seems to suggest.

As a side note: they are non-binary and use they/them pronouns.

Ok, that's my bad. Commenting after being unable to sleep much overnight leads to mistakes.

The Edinburgh-based former writer and academic said there was a "myth of the monster rapist" and "a demonisation of rape in the sense of it is a spectrum".

They continued: "It is a spectrum, none of which is any less or worse, but it is a spectrum of things that constitute one homogenised word 'rape'".

Manivannan went on to argue that the idea of a rapist as a "big burly man" was understandably a source of fear.

But the MSP told Rajasekaran that "any individual is capable of rape, including yourself and me, and I think that scary thought is the hardest to contend with".

Source: BBC

Delicate topic that requires more careful wording, but to me it doesn't sound like they were intending to downplay anything. That is also the claim made later during their apology.

I wonder if John Cleese - who has in the past few years gone down the rabbit hole of becoming a pretty hardcore right-winger and JK Rowling/transphobe supporter, - might be a bit prejudiced against Manivannan. I also wonder why his recent history is not brought up in the article. Why is he even relevant to rector proceedings in a Scottish university?

The Prime Minister has said all options are on the table for the UK’s future relationship with Europe – after the next election – and pro-EU MPs have seized on the momentum.

Like electoral reform, after the next election. That's up to 3 years away. I hope they do something meaningful in the meantime, whether that's laying groundwork or making some vital (and needed) reforms in other places.

Agree, if anything this is a win. Actually taking the seat would've been an upset, so getting within 13% (and clear second) shows the Greens and Polanski are winning people over, despite what anyone might claim.

I don't know about that. If they still continue receiving support - and the outcome here shows they are in fact still popular, almost enough to challenge Labour, - then I don't think it'll be as big of a deal-breaker as some politicians and the media are making it out to be.

Parties work with all sorts of right-wingers and known creeps all over, an anti-Israel/genocide stance will be tolerable. The media will blast it for a while, the main question is only if it'll put them out of contention with the electorate.

Accuracy reached 75 per cent when considering the chatbot’s top three suggestions, while none of the conversations triggered safety stops.

I mean I know doctors make mistakes too, but 75% if you get 3 guesses seems quite lacking. Especially if you then need to confirm with a doctor anyway.

And yeah, the hallucination part is insane and surely unacceptable.

Not to mention I'd need to read the study but I wonder what the cases and symptoms were, and if doctors ended up agreeing with the top 3 due to having read the transcripts beforehand. And we also know even experts can be fooled into thinking someone else is an expert if they talk well (see: Dr Fox effect, and related studies).

Man, I'm quite entertained here. Didn't even address the main points of my reply.

But yes, your own source states he did not profit from them. It's unclear, but the implication seems to be that information comes from the records and not Ali's own claims. In which case, yeah, there are some severe issues with tax evasion if you're correct and he's actually profiting lmao.

You still haven't said what my takeaway from this should be either. Representation of different views is good, and is often why the US has a VP from a different slant of the party than the President. Seems like that'd be fine within a British party too.

Anyway, I agree with one point: this discussion has gone on too long without actually getting anywhere. I'm sure we'll re-read this under another post some other day, and maybe actually end up gaining some sort of understanding from each other.

I still don't get what your angle is here. All I get from this at best is they might not be perfect or monolithic. I don't see why either case would be a deal-breaker. Those would be unreasonable expectations. And so I don't care.

But okay, let me address the specific point you're making. I'll even make a concession: let's say they were letting for profit and living purely as a landlord (patently false, even from just your quotes): what matters from a leader and representative is that they can put their own interests aside and work for the wants and needs of the people they represent. And I see no reason as of yet to say they wouldn't be able to do that. They could be completely ready to give up their property. If not, then it's a problem and needs to be addressed, but that's not an issue at present.

So... What is this meant to be pointing out? That not every member is perfect, and therefore neither is the party? I don't give a shit.

I'm not even sure I agree on their phrasing of the policy that is being discussed in this thread. Expecting perfection is just stupid though.

Overall, they align with my values and seem to intend to move things in a way that I think is good, and are also backing that notion up to a degree. That makes them a better party than the alternatives in my eyes.

I think it's appropriately bold. Right-wingers will find fault anyway. People are tired of politicians being cautious and diplomatic all the time, and if you want that you still have Lib Dem and Labour. Meanwhile I've seen people say the Greens are just idealists who talk big, but they finally have a chance to show they walk the walk.

Reform is big despite multiple scandals, racism, etc. I think it's fine to say "look, if you want someone similarly bold, but on the left side of the spectrum: Green can be that".

Privileged or not they're still kids who are ending up with mental health problems due to the actions of their school. You can still have empathy for children despite where they happened to be born and what choices their parents made for them.

Not to mention the article is clearly stating this situation is happening outside of Eton with the more general child population with no recourse. Unfortunately, we currently live in a situation where wealthy and influential parents are the ones who can get psychologists and journalists to take note of problems, but that is not the fault of 13 year olds.

So vandalising a plane is terrorism, but I'm guessing direct action that seeks to use fear to stop the actions of certain civilian groups isn't?

Very silly considering such a thing is nowhere close in reality. But that's what the tech bros promise so we might as well hold them to the consequences of their words.

...and to be fair having preemptive legislation is good.

In all fairness it seems like it would work. Being a complete background character doesn't get you close to anyone, and might even be suspicious. Meanwhile a weird order is a conversation starter, and why would a spy be drawing attention to themselves like that?

Plus it does paint a sort of nouveau riche character, explaining how they might fit in a posh area while not being recognised: they're new and they just made it to those circles. They're someone who might not be committed to any specific factions or could potentially be more easily manipulated.

It's a good persona to approach and be approached while explaining away any oddities. Yeah, it's also a suspicious position, but that's where you trust your agency to have the background checks pass.