leicsmac

But what about HAARP? /tinfoilhat

The job itself ages people. Obama looked about twenty years older, not eight, when he'd done his two terms.

Perhaps they think that the vast majority of Taylor fans wouldn't normally vote for him anyway as she tends to extol all the values and virtues that he lacks, so there's nothing to lose. They're wrong though, of course- an explicit endorsement of Harris by Swift would have a significant effect.

Better to not play too fast and loose with the safety net that guards people from "real poverty" and inequality and laissez-faire go hand in hand on this matter in my own opinion, but fair enough.

The vast majority of Africa, Asia and Latin America would disagree with that sentiment. I know this was being approached from a UK perspective only, but seeing as the overall topic is a worldwide issue (today, borders for money and work are far more porous), perhaps a worldwide sight is needed.

In an ideal system/ world based on a straight meritocracy and correlation between hard work and personal profit all or even most of the time, this argument would have a lot more merit. Do we have a system like that, or indeed anything close to it?

Which is where peer pressure (of a sort) has to come in to keep those exploitative individuals in check, either regulatory or otherwise. It's entirely possible for such a system to exist - as long as enough people have "enough", they will be fine with necessary curbs on the people constantly wanting "more". Edit: The middle part of the last century showed it can be done and showed how inequality shrank at least some, but now that gap is widening again - has done since the 1980's.

Yeah, thank you for clarifying, I see that you agree with the above now. I think WW is onto something regarding the necessary solutions, though.

It's pretty empirically shown that material conditions dictate human nature, not the other way round.

...and China are learning from that equally rapidly, much more so than the West did (sadly India, not so much). It's a fair point about the tone, but I'm minded to point out again that there is no room for nationalist rivalry on this particular matter anyway. This is not a fight just one side can "win", and if too many places think that, everyone loses, including them.

Key sentence BIU for emphasis there. Guess it's a byproduct of the individualist confrontational society that often exists there. Reuters, AP or indeed the BBC itself are the way to go over there, even though the first two are dry as hell.

Could be a bit of both tbh. Start with it as a means to make bank, and end up actually buying into the ideology wholesale. The rather sad thing is that the money trail is clear and obvious to anyone interested in the matter (leading back through London to Moscow and the evangelical southern US) but no one has the power and inclination to really address it.

Is there a reason to suspect that they're not (willfully), as opposed to being slightly behind the curve compared to the UK and closing fast? YMMV, but speaking personally I think the Grauniad is rather reflecting on the tone of both complacency ("we don't need to worry about climate change, the biggest contributors are elsewhere") and apparent superiority complex ("of course we're doing better than those *insert term for non Western country here*, and we always will") that does manifest itself in at least some talking heads on this particular matter in the UK and in other "democratic" nations. The Earth doesn't care at all about our political systems apart from as a tool to make this right, after all. One world or no world.

Just goes to show how different governmental systems are better (or worse) at dealing with different problems and there is no one size fits all solution for policymaking going forward, despite some folks saying one system or another is always better than the others. Adaptation (thanks Darwin) in this and other areas is the only method of survival going forwards. The Chinese approach to necessary long term projects like this one is something the rest of the world could learn from.

LEICESTER - 30 AUGUST 2024 A popular Leicester City fansite was the subject of controversy yesterday when it emerged that several of its members were victimised in a phishing scheme that took place earlier this month. Using popular "social engineering" tactics, one or multiple users (the exact number is unknown at this time) of the website FoxesTalk were able to gain the answer to security questions used by other users on other important websites and then to gain control of them, including access to email accounts, online shopping services, and in one case, releasing the details of their online pornographic activities. <insert ad here>

Yeah, the guy has 50s age dad body. Look at the keg.

Think that depends on the specific politics for me, but yeah, agreed.

The current state of the club is actually amusing to me rather than angering. It's like when the fifth goal goes in around the hour mark and all you can really do is laugh.

Ondol is great, one of the things I miss from Korea.

The freedom to take the consequences is the one upon which all other freedoms are based.

Is this pitch a minefield or is it ball just totally outplaying bat?

I would agree, but then I also think that discussion has been pretty much worked out by the theorists. It's just the practice and/or the likelihood of each outcome is the only real source of discussion.

That's possible that this is the limit of the strategic developments, but both parties don't appear to know or accept that yet. It's up to Ukraine to get whatever victories (PR or otherwise) that they can then take to the negotiating table.

PR is a lot more important than some people think in terms of warfare. The Americans were never defeated on the field of battle by either the Viet Cong/NVA or the Taliban... but as of the present day, the strategic situation reads as a loss for them in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. And that is the case largely because of negative PR leading to war weariness leading to a loss due to no longer wanting to continue to fight. So this might still be a good thing overall, for one thing it shows those supplying weapons to Ukraine that they're still in the mood to use them effectively and so keep supplying them for as long as is needed. Needless to say, I agree totally with your second paragraph.

Exactly so. Something that has been mentioned previously on this very thread, too.