Learned it from T-Mobile, and their T-Life setup.

Stores are all but useless now.

The Brexit referendum in 2016 did NOT permit all British registered voters to vote. This was taken to court multiple times.

The number of people who were entitled to vote was very tightly restricted. Access to a polling station was limited. There were many factors that could result in you being excluded. Postal ballots were largely not permitted, even though they were officially allowed. If you were overseas at that precise moment, you couldn't vote. You had to specially register to vote for it, but the website (which not everyone could access, strangely enough) was only up erratically. Those in the Isle of Man, although full British citizens, were not permitted to vote, for example.

Not only common, but necessary.

Planets don't just spring into being. They form through gradual accretion, and that is not constrained to just one big thing eating all the other little things. Its a bunch of little things all eating littler things, getting bigger in the process, and then colliding with each other as their orbital mechanics change from the changes in mass and angular velocity/momentum.

Most models have things forming in the outer solar system and falling in, as they get heavier and slower-- or things in the inner system getting ejected out after such a shift, plunging toward the sun, picking up a lot of speed, then getting slingshotted out.

This is why there are so many rogue planets floating around in deep space. (On the average of 20 per star, in the milky way galaxy.)

Until things settle down, early solar systems are very chaotic places with lots of collisions, things falling into and out of orbits, getting shot out of the system, all the while getting bombarded by highly unstable and variable/unpredictable solar radiation effects from the host star being turbulent.

Trick question-- There is nothing "good" about social networking as it currently exists.

Moreover, the very same people here who are wanting to shut down child access, are the same folks who have been doing all manner of organized child exploitation through government systems abuse.

You seem to think that just because one thing is bad, the other must be good.

The reality that none of the things are actually good, seems to escape your grasp.

I am being pragmatic, and suggesting instead that No Force On This Earth will be successful in stopping the kids from their favorite haunts, and that the effort to try to shove that genie back into its bottle is pointless.

The only reason anyone who understands the problem would try, is if there is some other ancillary goal they have in mind, with the impossible boondoggle that looks good to rubes as a cover.

There's no way to make social media safe for children. The only way to make children moderately safer from this, is to completely outlaw the very concept of social media as a service. Even then, kids will form them on their own, and the very same things will be discussed in them. Don't think for a minute I dont understand that this happened with IRC in the days of yore, and still happens today on services like Discord.

The genie will never go back into that bottle, short of civilization regressing to an earlier state.

Dont be silly!

This is a truly visionary, and ambitious programme undertaken by the british PM!

By restricting the information and content young people have access to, they can double down on state owned television and enforce messaging that favors them!

It'll only take half a decade or so to come to fruition, but it'll work, I'm sure of it!

There's no way those kids will use stuff like proxy servers, VPNS, fake identities, or TOR exit nodes! If they just block social media, they can shut down all those bad dirty ideas! Surely!

I wonder if all these tech-bros (tech-brahs?) spend a large amount of time getting their egos stroked by AI chatbots.

Don't want to hear any gainsays to your wisdom and business savvy, just chat with your AI pal.

The UK mostly doesn't do voter suppression. However, they did for the Referendum. Basically, anyone who might not be racist was not permitted to vote.

Even then, 48% still insisted on staying in the EU.

One of the reasons the UK doesn't do voter suppression the way the US does is because (until very recently) the House of Lords had a lot of people in it who owed no favours at all to the political elite but did have a huge responsibility to making sure that things functioned in the long term. This has since been corrupted, so the HoL is no longer anything like as independent and politically neutral as it once was. Rather, the two main parties have stuffed it full of sycophants, which makes it useless. Which, of course, was the intended effect.

Because those in the HoL were partly hereditary (and therefore not under anyone's thumb and impossible to manipulate) and partly chosen on actual merit (they'd done stuff that was actually impressive and good for the country), the HoL were the true guardians of the Constitution and the nation. The House of Commons has always been corrupt and degenerate, so a parallel system that politicians couldn't control meant their worst excesses would always be curbed. The HoL has defended the common person FAR FAR more often than anyone in the Commons ever has.

This didn't make the HoL perfect, or even advisable to retain in its historic form, but it made it immune to the corruption that we were seeing in the rest of the system. What we needed was a replacement system that retained that immunity and improved on it.

Although there is a right join, no far right join has ever been defined and there's no signs that it would in fact be possible.

Yeeees and no. It matters in terms of loans he can get from banks. A trillionaire gets an awful lot better deal than anyone else.

So although he cannot liquidate a trillion dollars, there's a decent chance he can borrow at exceptionally low interest rates enough to do pretty much whatever he wants because he has the moniker.

It's not hard to be morally superior to a childish self-righteous socipoath.

He's not bright, he's not clever, he IS abusive, and he is exceptionally rich. However, only an idiot equates "rich" with "better".

I would say more than half of Slashdot can match or exceed his intelligence. And that's despite the fact that Slashdot has attracted pet rocks as users in recent years. Actually, truth be told, it's because of that. Back in the younger days of Slashdot, I'd say 95% of the regulars were smarter than Musk.

All Musk has is money. And I can understand you envying that. But here's the thing. Smart people don't talk their company's value down. Smart people invest their money. Musk throws it around, such as buying Twitter and destroying the userbase.

Musk is not your friend.

“The Chinese,” bellowed a drunken Australian, “Chinese bloody invented nerve-splicing. Give me the mainland for a nerve job any day. Fix you right, mate”

When I was in training to be a medic (late 1980s) at a USAF hospital that also treated veterans, I asked a doc what he thought of socialized medicine.

"Look around you. That's what this is."

Een Soviet Roosha windows throw 1-in-10 peepols out, to land on a bunch of boolits 9 stories below.

While having a haart attack-ack-ack-ack.

And drinking a delightful cup of polonium tea.

Just make it so folks can purchase online gift cards and then print up their own physical version to toss in sock or stocking or something.