Non-white has zero to do with being an immigrant or not. Your assumption shows some real racist bias in your understanding of national demographics.

Or just punch her and tell her it can't be a crime because in her reality you're not an immigrant and thus don't count in crime stats. :-)

*Stares at cricket bat. *
*Stares at football.*
*Looks out the window at the park.*
*Considers going to the movies with friends.* ...

Nah fuck it I'm going to spraypaint a corner store and steal some old lady's handbag. It's really the only option without my phone. There's nothing else that we could be doing.

Something has to exist for it to die. Britain never had free speech as an absolute right.

I don't think a few 18 year olds are going to sway the vote in any meaningful way as much as an entire generation of boomers will. But really is this appealing to boomers? In what way? I thought it would be appealing to boomers to have kids distracted and not annoying them.

Roku is more than a little dongle you plug into a TV. They offer subscription management systems, a whole TV channel, they have apps for streaming and are often pre-installed on TVs too. And while looking up how their subscription system worked I found out they have smart homes too, lightbulbs, doorbells, etc.

Not that I see value in any of this, but my point is that a Shield replaces only a tiny fraction of what Roku offers.

An employee of Meta is that, an employee of Meta. Their responsibilities extend to the requirements of their direct boss and are not subject purely stock and revenues. A CEO is an employee of the board and shareholders. Their responsibilities extend to creating returns and thus their performance is wholly defined by stock and revenues.

You're right though he can't be fired in general, but the point is: why would anyone fire him? He is demonstrating great performance.

To revert back to your example with a personal example, I have once before directly caused an outage at a facility that cost us 1/6th of our yearly turnover. I wasn't fired, why? It was a question of value. Would someone else not make the fuckup? What is the cost of replacing me with someone who may make a similar fuckup? And more importantly how much value do I provide beyond that fuck-up. Fun fact I got an "exceeded expectation" on my year end review and a nice bonus.

How's this relate to CEOs? Shareholders expect CEOs to not just sit around and let the ship run. They expect especially in the technology world for CEOs to try something new - especially when it means entering new markets with potential new revenue streams, and there's not only an acceptance that some of this costs money without payoffs, there's an outright expectation for it.

Large numbers play against us here. In terms of units of revenue Meta's *expenditure* in something like AI is not out of the ordinary for R&D investment any tech company makes. In fact it's on the low side. People just can't comprehend this because they loose touch with just how much filthy fucking money floats around Meta. When you knock a zero off the back of it, and give it any other company name you don't blink an eye.

You don't understand. Never before have so many deckchairs been rearranged. This is MASSIVE.

Your logic is circular. An act of parliament is required to launch a referendum which needs to meet the legal requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 which is a law created by parliament. As such the choice of whether a referendum is binding or not is entirely at the discretion of the parliament.

But ultimately you're missing the point. The point is that the referendum wasn't binding, and that subsequent acting on it was stupidity. To answer your question:

Presumably the Prime Minister would lose his job... oh wait he did that anyway and his party absolutely tanked the following election. So literally the worst outcome happened when following the "will of the people".

Yeah I heard of it. It's a group of countries that didn't agree to work on joint security until many years after the customs union was formed. Heck for a long time only half of Germany was part of NATO including a walled off part of Berlin. NATO existed while a significant portion of Europe was still at war.

Not sure what point you were trying to make, but you made it poorly.

False, the parliament does get to make laws. They also have the final say, and they frequently reject European Commission laws and ask for re-wording or rephrasing.

The makeup of the Commission is exclusively determined by the European Council and the European Parliament, both groups which are made up of fully elected representatives.

Get a clue buddy.

Unfortunately people are completely ignorant about the EU. There is not a single legislation or rule passed in the EU that wasn't voted on by a representative of the people in the EU. The "unelected commission" can only make recommendations (and is approved by represenatatives of the EU parliament which is elected by the people). The final rules are approved by the council (who are heads of state democratically elected by the people of the EU's respective countries).

The only non-elected and non democratic process in the EU is through the EU Court of Justice, and that's a good thing because electing judges is fucking stupid.

I'm with you on this point though. As much of an EV fanboi as I am, that doesn't make much sense.

Yes they do and when they do so it's usually at the hand of a dictator, or usually called out for the utter stupid move that it is.

Exactly my point. There's not really conclusive proof of anything in the entire debate, even back in 2016. When a polls, votes or referenda are conducted and show only a slight majority they should only be acted on if legally required. The UK fucked itself over an idea that had no significant support.

FYI, the UK is pretty rare among modern democracies in allowing critical things to be decided by a simple majority. Most democracies require both a significant barrier along with a super majority because you don't fuck your country for something that isn't certain would be supported.

The real stupidity is that based purely on demographics and life expectancy alone, that the valid votes assigned to age groups in the UK meant that between the vote and the actual leave date, the votes will have flipped simply as old people die assuming no one changed their votes. So in a way the outcome was decided by people who never lived to see it, just another way the old generation fucked over their young.

On what basis do you suggest shareholders remove him as head of the company? It's easy to point to fuckups, but the hard pill to swallow is they just reported another record net profit of $25bn for the quarter keeping their upwards trend. Their share price is high. Their revenue is down slightly from their record Q4 2025, but they made a bigger profit on that slightly reduced revenue.

So if you were the board, or a shareholder, why would you shoot the golden goose who has clearly run a company that has healthy and sustained massive success, not just riding the wave of today's hype?

They didn't make a loss. They invested in an idea that didn't generate a new revenue stream. In fact you can't even point on their historical profit chart at which point they spent this money. Line goes up.