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.

If the problem was being genetically dead, then why do we have demand for sperm and egg donations? Both are a warrant for at least one of the parents not to have the genes procreated. Same with adoptions. Apparently, feeling to be a parent is not directly linked with actual genetics. And so I doubt any claim that childless people are inherently unhappy because their genes are not carried on.

It was not "coal in your face".

I don't know about empty rooms, but it's very normal in Britain, if you're walking through a field, to turn left and walk clockwise around the edge of the field. But the problem there is potential for bias because of the area.

When rambling through the British countryside, the standard protocol is to turn left immediately on entry but then walk clockwise around the field. So turning left seems to be fixed, but the direction of preference is determined by when.

Here, we have to differentiate two things. First, what you can trust, and here i agree with you. And second, what you can claim. And just because I should not believe you in the first place, does not give you the right to claim false things about someone else.

You are still guilty of libel, and as the court decided, the false claims were not in the links, but hallucinated by the AI. And because Google coded the AI and operated the AI, its products are products of Google, and Google can not claim that they are just reporting about libelous claims as they could have argued with unredacted search results, they just linked to.

Anthropic are responsible parents and never let a child process wander the streets on its own.

Seriously, I'm just not seeing the supposed benefits from AI at this time, just a very large number of risks.

That is precisely why it is considered extremely bad practice to have developers test their own code beyond basic sanity-checking. Developers will inherently test with the very same assumptions they made when they coded, so will never capture the areas in which their work is most likely to be fragile.

Unfortunately, QA teams just aren't up to decent QA. They tend to miss all kinds of very obvious problems and flaws. In part because deadlines matter more than their jobs and they know it.

Apple has not the size to forego 400 million potential customers. And they can still sell iPhones without Siri in Europe. Hence, the shareholders will pressure Apple management to realize the revenue, even if that means not installing Siri on the devices.

Besides that, many companies operating in both North America and Europe want the same mobile devices on both sides of the pond, to streamline roll-out and control processes for the devices, and if they decided for Apple in the U.S., they will try to strong-arm Apple into selling law-compliant devices in Europe, by threatening to look for alternatives for North America too, so they can avoid doubling their IT structures.

I don't claim any different.

As I have used an EV, I can safely confirm it causes less pain.