https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-partners-unite-to-sanction-ministers-inciting-west-bank-violence

I bought a Henson razor and that has been relatively good, everything else in sponsored segments that I have been tempted by seems to be poorly reviewed elsewher however.

I like the black knight from the same work.

None of it is earned. It is handed to them, and this offends me.”

“You asked me what I want,” Black said. “This once, just this once, I want us to win.”

The smile across his face was a cutting, vicious thing.

“To spit in the eyes of the Hashmallim. To trample the pride of all those glorious, righteous princes. To scatter their wizards and make their oracles liars. Just to prove that it can be done.”

There was something his eyes burning like coals and embers.

“So that five hundred years from now, a band of heroes shiver in the dark of night. Because they know that no matter how powerful their sword or righteous their cause, there was once a time it wasn’t enough. That even victories ordained by the Heavens can broken by the will of men.”

Huh, I assumed the point of this was to change the “themselves” part of the text, so the person moves past their embarrassment /shyness and sings where they can be heard by others. but from the comments I gather the commonly understood meaning was to stop them singing altogether?

Because companies have been talking up how their adoption of AI is going to make them faster and more able to capitalise on opportunities in order to prop up their valuations for a while now and it seems to work as far as share price goes.

Being able back up this talk with metrics showing that their employees are all in on AI reinforces this, since the share price is the metric the business optimises for over product development employee reviews will index on this over cost effectiveness, and at most big tech companies engineers are very much making every decision with an eye to performance review optimisation (i.e. how it will affect their next review rather than the product they are building)

There is also some lesser incentives in that meta employees care directly about the meta share price since a lot of their compensation is in the form of RSUs.

I’m not condonig this as a desirable state of affairs, just explaining the incentive curve that the actors are following.

Lmao, would blowing up an effigy of Hitler be racist towards Germans?

Conflating disgust towards and individual with disgust towards the race/religion/nationality that individual belongs to is such a transparent attempt to shed well aimed criticism.

I was considering playing hogwarts legacy a while back, I decided if I bought it I would donate double what I paid for the game to mermaids.

Whatever fraction of a share of the cost goes to Rowling and whatever fraction of that she uses to push her hateful agenda probably does less harm than mermaids does good.

Conceptually I view it as similar to putting sin taxes on things which are harmful to society but difficult to prohibit (alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food etc.)

I wound up not buying it because there are other games to play from better franchises and my HP nostalgia isn’t all that strong, but I think this is a reasonable approach.

I don’t think there is much of a thought process. Or at least his actions are emotionally consistent but not intellectual consistent.

Being broken up with is painful, either as a sense of loss or as ego pain.

In order to make both disappear he needs to get back with you, but if he only cares about making the ego pain disappear he just needs to convince himself he is better off without you, and the easy way to convince yourself of something is to convince others.

So both actions are just him responding to (what I assume is) ego pain, neither of them are necessarily informed by his true perception of who you are.

Edit: none of this excuses his actions btw, it’s meant as a way to understand why he is saying cruel things and to understand that the things he is saying have no basis in reality.

How did your boyfriend talk about you to third parties while you were together?

On the assumption phevs have the combustion engine off unless they are in hybrid or performance mode:

I think it’s decisive because the article’s focus is fuel consumption but fuel consumption in phevs is actually just a proxy for driver behaviour. (Once you factor out differences between models)

So while the study does show that phevs technically have worse fuel economy in real world usage, it doesn’t show they use more fuel in either electric mode or in hybrid mode than previously believed.

The conclusion is useful for understanding the overall impact of phevs on petroleum consumption, air quality and global warming, but it’s misleading when evaluating what kind of car you should buy.

Since you know how you drive, learning new information about average driver behaviour doesn’t factor into your decision on what kind of car you buy.

The environmentally conscious answer is still no car if possible, electric if you need a car but most journeys fall within the range limit and phev if you need a car for frequent long range usage.

Tldr; it’s contentious because the article reports information useful for policy decisions to a general public who are making individual consumer decisions where the information is misleading.

Like most taxes it’s possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn’t sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it’s passed.

Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.

The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won’t encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.

That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.

Fixed, thank you.

Yeah, fair that is probably a truer reading of their intent, I will edit my post to refer to yours.

I would still argue that taking proven approaches that cut security services related murders by up to 98.5% is worth doing and dismissing that on the basis that anarchism if somehow implemented in the US would solve the last 1.5% is…

Well whatever, I don’t want to try to debate people out of anarchism, especially not here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_annual_rates_and_counts_for_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers

• Venuzela is 1st with 1829.9 per 10M
• USA is at 29th with 33.1 per 10M
• Poland is at 60th with 0.5 per 10M
• Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and Croatia are recorded as 0

Declaring something happens in every country with armed police Is asinine when it happens 55 times more in some places and 66 times less in others.

When there are countries with such a dramatically lower rate of security services killing civilians there are important lessons to be learned there, rather than throwing up our hands and saying something like “well states will murder wherever states exist, don’t worry about it, it’s normal”. Edit: better characterisation in pupperdreams’ reply below