The problem is the inflexibility of the constitution. If judges hadn't made the conscious decisions to turn the constitution into whatever they feel like, you'd be stuck in an even worse system of obsolete 18th century government.
Exactly. I won't even say it's a good system, but it's a straw man he's attacking. Also, maybe i'm over sensitive but i feel like he's insinuating the constitution is wrong because it's inherently racist and elitist. Maybe i'm straw manning but sadly that choice of words often goes hand in hand with such ideas and reckless, poorly thought out solutions.
>i feel like he's insinuating the constitution is wrong because it's inherently racist and elitist.
The constitution suggests that "all men are created equal". it sadly needed several revisions to define what "man" is, though. And then some 150 years before we expanded "man" to represent "humanity" instead of "male".
The constitution isn't racist/sexist by the wording of its law, but the interpretations arguably were. And maybe are.
Nothing either good nor bad but thinking makes it so.
We had to spend a long, long time thinking and re-thinking this over. Sadly the trend as of late is to stop thinking altogether. I hope that changes.
It's defunct isn't it? If i'm being kind i would say that Americas strength comes from her people, not the constitution. I do believe that's the truth.
My main complaint on the constitution, is perfectly explained, ironically by the guy trying to defend it
>>Feldman cited another reason to
defend the Constitution: It “has the
capacity to evolve and change.” In
1919, he explained, Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jr. “basically invented modern free speech law,” establishing, in a
series of opinions, the now-
fundamental concept that free
expression should be permitted
unless it poses a clear danger to
others. “He understood that the Constitution had to evolve,”
Feldman said.
So there you have it. The reason the constitution is great because judges allow themselves to interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted (sometimes based on loyalty owed to a political faction or) that aligns with the way they want it to be, not the way it is.
That's frankly bonkers. Now i'll get back to my country run by the guys 2/3 of the country voted against, lords, a king and a supreme court run by activist judges with a large portion of our law outsourced to the EU...
I've never heard anyone suggest that Britain should have focused on improving conditions at home before engaging in empire building. I always assumed the two were not mutually dependent. The expenses in running an empire probably paid for itself and no doubt returned a lot on the initial investment (after all the whole point of having an empire is to secure better trading). Meanwhile the conditions in the cities were a separate problem, and one which was hard to fix quickly given the population explosion and the Industrial Revolution.
All of which to say, is while you raise an excellent point all the evidence i've seen suggests the two are entirely unrelated projects. If anything increasing globalisation in the long term increased prosperity for everyone involved (just not necessarily by equal amounts) and vastly improved conditions.
If anyone has a counterpoint, by which i mean historical complaints or serious academic analysis, i'm happy to hear. None of this is a moral judgement on the relative evils and merits of empires and Victorian England, which is not the topic, just my opinion of why from a practical standpoint one has very little to do with the other.
“The book highlights that most of Britain’s economic growth in the imperial period did not come from its colonies. Trade only accounted for about a quarter of economic output, and most of that trade was with Western Europe and North America — not the Empire. For that reason alone, the Empire cannot have been the decisive factor explaining domestic investment and later wealth.”
I think this misses something fundamental. Most of the colonies Britain created until the race for Africa were to support the Navy. During the 16th century they were efforts to create colonies to support trade (i.e. North America, India). Britain then needed a strong navy to support its merchant vessels who sold English goods all over the world, and bought goods from all over the world to Britain. Which is why colonies like the cape were created. It is this growth in merchants that brought riches. Those riches would not have lasted without a Navy to protect the merchants from piracy or privateers.
Colonies were not originally intended to be profitable, they were way points for ships to stock up on goods, water, men, etc. Leaders in those colonies on their own initiatives then looked to expand the colonies to make themselves a big name.
You are absolutely right — most internet users don't know the specific keyboard combination to make an em dash and substitute it with two hyphens. On some websites it is automatically converted into an em dash. If you would like to know more about this important punctuation symbol and it's significance in identitifying ai writing, please let me know.
And Em Dash is trivially easy on iOS — you simply hold press on the regular dash button - I’ve been using it for years and am not stopping because people might suddenly accuse me of being an AI.
Thanks for that. I had no idea either. I'm genuinely surprised Windows buries such a crucial thing like this. Or why they even bothered adding it in the first place when it's so complicated.
The Windows version is an escape hatch for keying in any arbitrary character code, hence why it's so convoluted. You need to know which code you're after.
To be fair, the alt-input is a generalized system for inputting Unicode characters outside the set keyboard layout. So it's not like they added this input specifically. Still, the em dash really should have an easier input method given how crucial a symbol it is.
It's a generalized system for entering code page glyphs that was extended to support Unicode. 0150 and 0151 only work if you are on CP1252 as those aren't the Unicode code points.
>There’s another distance limit at work here, and that is the speed of light. It takes milliseconds for the signal in your phone to reach the hotel above ground and be handed over to the mobile network. But if it takes too long to get from phone to hotel, then your phone call s..a.rt..s..t o. br..e..ak up. As it happens, that distance is about 12km, so Boldyn needs nine hotels around London to cover the whole of the Underground
I find that interesting. Another fascinating rabbit hole the article has sent me down is that there is an unused station called north end. I've been down that stretch before and i had no idea. Does anyone know if passengers can see it?
There's a small surface building that doesn't look like a station, platforms are visible if you're paying attention, and it can be used for emergency evacuations.
I'm still unclear how the stated goal of the title is achieved. My first assumption reading the title that it works something like airtags, but that is obviously nonsense. unless you are standing right next to the guy you want to message, how exactly does it work?
Thanks. Basically it depends on c travelling to another town. Also taking the risk of being caught with the content on it's phone. It looks like a great app and every little helps but hardly a game changer, unless i'm underestimating how bad it is in Iran?
If it works via tor it's probably also slow, but that's a small price to pay for not relying on a central server for people with legitimate concerns or problems with connecting.
I suspect use cases are more likely community organizing and info sharing.
It supports forums and private groups that are E2EE, and "blog" posts that can include RSS reblogging.
The forums and private groups do bidirectional syncing and merging of all updates with anyone in the forum/group, so that gives you the equivalent of near-infinite multihop among trusted peers for large forums/groups. And it means every person has a complete copy, so it's nearly impossible to find all copies to censor it.
With the blogging of reblogged RSS feeds, you can even have people acting like news carriers for viral-ike person-to-person information transfer as well. Even if that does require a little more manual curation by the "transmission vectors" than forum/group posts.
Remember too that when things get bad enough people become ready to give up thier lives if necessary, and this may just be a way to reduce (but not eliminate) the need to actually sacrifice thier life for their cause. Large groups of people may collectively believe it's worth being individually captured and imprisoned or murdered to ensure the larger group is aware of what's happening.
Usually i'd be outraged at American overreach, but this is ofcom so i say more power to anyone who can bring them down a few notches. The same goes to Starmers government whose attitude to free speech seems to be that it's a necessary evil (to not lose elections), and something, along with the nhs that they need to pay lip service to every now and then.
I'm not getting my hopes up though. It's entirely possible that ofcom will just carve exemptions for large American companies, using their new powers to go after smaller, easier targets - which is what has been predicted since that awful online "safety" bill first came up.
But I'm not dumb either. While i do believe the current administration views European free speech rights with contempt i'm under no illusions this is the primary motivation behind this threat.
reply