leicsmac

And a great shot to force an extra end from the Swiss against the US in the curling, too. They need to win it for GB to go through.

That's true, Cromwell was a proper bastard with his power, too.

Apparently that remains news rather than olds in some cases, though. There is a big chance of full on sci-fi novel dystopia, I agree. Different heads, same problems. Honestly, I'm not singling out monarchy as a singular problem here, but it's the current topic and it can be and has been one of them. Finding a solution that is in any way ideal or workable, though... that's the real issue. Thanks to the very human flaw to bend at the knees.

Such monarchies at least appear to have limits on their executive power, which is good. The same point could easily apply to a republic like the US where a President apparently has a massive amount of executive power. To reduce the point simply: hierarchies with big power gaps are bad, mmmkay?

A little thought on this: The kind of power-imbalanced system that a monarchy (or an autarchy, or any other similar system of rulership) embodies, easily creates, along with an apparent sense of belonging that many people appear to feel, the kinds of situation where such terrible abuses of that power can occur. It's fine to value the institution and the system, but let's not pretend that firstly the power disparity it provides has not been abused in the past and secondly that those who have abused that power haven't "gotten away with it" on a great many occasions.

I really don't think this is as much of a zero sum idea as is being floated here, but fair enough.

Knockout match, anyone can beat anyone.

Which, I fear, will always be the case. So, with that in mind, when exactly would be a good time to prioritise the stuff that Epstein and his invited guests got up to?

Just needs one of them, thankfully.

This. Can't really get my head around the idea of any investigation into something as far reaching as the Epstein stuff being "low profile".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-8d2b6944-4f7a-45b4-96fd-2d92499ff97d In the race for the future, the Chinese are winning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cq8gy8nexvdt Yoon gets a life sentence for trying to start a military coup. Was the obvious outcome once it failed, I expect some future president will pardon him in some kind of horsetrade some time in the future so he won't die in jail, there's a fair bit of precedent for that.

And the subsequent bit that I posted in reply then added additional context that showed rather clearly the history this administration has for taking action against those not toeing their line. The bias against them, in this case and a great many others (though, I will say, not all), is based on established empirical fact. And their ideology working on subversion of the very idea of such facts, turning them into a talking shop where apparently no one is invalidated but no one is right, is one of the most horrendously damaging things they have done and are still doing.

Then, again, it has to be asked exactly why this administration, and not the many, many others of all types before it, have taken this particular step. If people honestly think that they are acting in good faith here, then that's up to them, but speaking personally I can't possibly see how, given their very obvious hypocrisy and actions in the past regarding pretty much any badmouthing of the "Dear Leader".

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this administration are interested in consistency of reportage across political lines, in this matter or any other? Given past events, that seems really rather generous a reading of this particular situation.

A distinction that has appeared unimportant until now. And then the critical question becomes exactly why that is.

Yes, they're very good at projection. A rule that has only been applied now, it would seem. News content has traditionally been exempted from the "equal time" rule. But the FCC has said the rule may soon apply to late-night programmes like Colbert's. It may also apply to political radio programmes, which tend to have more conservative hosts and listeners. After issuing the new guidance in January, Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman known for taking an expansive view of his power, said on X that "for years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late-night & daytime talk shows qualify as 'bona fide news' programmes - even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes. "Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities." US President Donald Trump has at times said he is considering pulling the FCC licence for several US networks that he says have aired views critical of his presidency. Let's not pretend what is happening here is in any way even handed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0dk3yd5eo US late-night host Stephen Colbert has accused his network of refusing to broadcast an interview with a Democratic politician over fears of retaliation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). CBS, the network which hosts the programme, denies that it "prohibited" the interview from being aired, saying it gave only "legal guidance". On Monday night's show, Colbert said that CBS would not show his interview with Texas lawmaker James Talarico out of concerns about a response from the FCC, which has new guidance on equal airtime for political candidates. That much-vaunted "freedom of expression" is only for me and not for thee, then?

Perhaps the curlers function better in a situation where every match is a knockout match for them...

The memory of Henry VIII must have been really piss poor.

At the time a lot of people laughed at just how ridiculous a Bond villain Elliot Carver appeared to be. Not sure how many people are laughing now.

Disappointing from both curling teams tbh, considering they're both among the best in the world. Also disappointing is the judges carrying on the age of habit of being rather unfair towards GB short track speed skaters.

Fair enough. It stands to reason that more effort and funding is needed for maintenance when such services are heavily used, too.

Well, the takeaway I get from that is that this particular AI tool is ridiculously kind

In defence of @danny. here, they go on about AI threat as much as I do regarding climate change. And, in fairness, both, coupled with and powered by human hubris and short term thought, are legit threats that could lead to catastrophe if not properly addressed. Both are concerns that do need a proper discussion, both here and out in the policymaking world.