You say this:

interpreting casualty numbers that a militant group releases with clear propaganda intent in a light most favorable to them…

but just said this:

Statistically, half their forces are minors.

Pull the other one. If all you wanted was for people not to interpret casualty numbers “in a light most favourable to Hamas” you’d be acknowledging how high the death toll is while making your point instead of trying to distract from it.

There is no need to “play devil’s advocate” - if you believe something, argue for it. If you don’t believe something but think I’m missing something, you can point it out and make a case for why it’s important without being confusing about what you actually believe.

All evidence I have seen is that Hamas does not systematically use child soldiers. We can see the indiscriminate tactics of the IDF; we can put that together with the high death toll to make a reasonable conclusion that vast numbers of civilians have been killed. You’re trying to cast doubt on this idea but the amount of doubt is akin to flicking water from your fingers onto a housefire.

Most of the death toll is women and children (7k and 10k, respectively). Even if you assume all men killed are Hamas fighters, which is not true, that is very high when compared to the attack which triggered the war.

They analysis shows that, were the last election fought on the new constituency boundaries, the Conservative majority would be 14 seats larger. It also reveals that the swing to Labour required for the party to achieve an overall majority increases by 0.7 percentage points from 12.0 to 12.7.

So this is less representative. However, you’d be hard pushed to find anything that really looks like clear gerrymandering.

Tesla is headquartered in an ally of the EU; BYD isn’t. Maybe Tesla’s subsidies are a problem to the EC - I don’t know. But you’re looking at it in a slightly simple way, as if it’s very important that this process needs to be fair.

It doesn’t need to be fair; it needs to be good for the EU. Is it good for the EU to impose tariffs on subsidised Chinese vehicles coming in (if indeed they are subsidised)? Quite possibly. (Quite possibly not: how important is it to have a big car manufacturing industry, versus your population having cheaper cars?) Whether it would also be good to impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles is also a valid question to ask, but those questions don’t have to have the same answer.

The article doesn’t suggest it’s impossible. It’s difficult because you have to build up a competitive business from nothing in addition to the one you’re already building up.

It’s like any number of blog hosts that have gone before it.

Absolutely true that this isn’t covered enough - the cuts were massive. They’ve also only been topped up by increases to regressive council tax, so it’s yet another way the Tories are worsening inequality through tax.

But the important question at the end - what the next, presumably Labour, government will do about it - seems unanswerable. It’s not just that Labour are now allergic to saying they’ll spend money. It’s also that paying debt interest is now a significant expense due to higher interest rates and our economy is barely growing, so taking on government debt no longer makes financial sense.

The Tories have done the opposite of fixing the roof while the sun was shining - they neither reduced public sector debt nor did they reinforce our services by investing cheap money into them. Now we’re left with the consequences and I don’t see how anyone can fix it.

Fair enough, I genuinely misread and thought that was within the quotation marks. But her message is still wrong because she is still talking about AI in general, but her argument applies only to a) AI whose data is derived from data scrapers like Facebook or b) AI put to surveillance tasks. That does not apply to Stable Diffusion, which is why I mentioned it, but it is caught by her assertion, “AI is a surveillance technology.”

AI absolutely has the potential to be used for surveillance; its use in facial recognition most obviously. But the person quoted in the article didn’t say “AI has the potential to be used for surveillance” - she said “AI is fundamentally a surveillance technology”. So if she’s not talking about LLMs and image generators, why is she saying that it’s a fundamental part of the technology? It’s not very fundamental if these two year-defining AI technologies aren’t included in it.

ChatGPT is not reliable enough to be worth citing. “Per ChatGPT” may as well be “per some bloke down the pub”.

Remarkably stupid take. It’s produced by big-data companies because you need a lot of data to feed it but that doesn’t make it “surveillance technology”. Stable Diffusion wasn’t trained on the kind of data she’s talking about, and it can’t be used to surveil you either. ChatGPT no more permits surveillance of its users than does chatting with a real person.

It’s spelled “copyright”, not “copywrite” btw :P

I know how HTTP works. These banners are supposed to (and are legally allowed to) store a cookie saying you have refused. Websites are allowed to store session cookies with displaying a banner at all.

No, they set a cookie to store it, but with a low retention period, so you get bugged again.

A start would be to require sites to remember non-consents for at least as long as they remember consents. Why do I have to be asked about cookies by every site every month?

Your browser can not save third party cookies, but it might break some sites. Some advertising situations allow the use of first-party cookies, and blocking first-party cookies will break most sites.

In either case you will still have to fill out the consent form, and if the consent is stored in the kind of storage you block, then you will have to fill it out every single time you visit.

Yes, but it often doesn’t work and even when it does the site is unusable while it works, which for some particularly awful banners is several minutes. The situation is worse on mobile where most people have a browser that you can’t install add-ons to (and I’m not sure if that one works in firefox mobile anyway)

It’s already the case that necessary cookies don’t need permission, but websites do not abuse this to not show the prompt. This is because the legislation has teeth.

The detail here is that she applied for settled status, which would have granted her leave to remain in (and hence to enter) the country, but it was refused. Pending her appeal she was temporarily granted the right to work in the UK, but she was not temporarily granted the right to remain, it seems - or at least that’s what the Home Office position implies.

It seems like an oversight to me: the application for settled status allows you to leave for up to 6 months at a time and come back and still qualify; if you can still work while you’re appealing a decision, it would make sense to temporarily allow the person into the country.