I notice that this attempted assassination is being used by the Interior Minister to push that this was caused by "hate speech" and the deputy chairman of his party is also joining him in the same rhetoric. Even while emergency surgery is being performed on the PM as we speak, the Government can't help but use this terrible event to push an agenda of censorship.

It's almost as if critics of these authoritarian laws were warning that the same laws can also be used against supporters of said laws. Who could have seen this coming? Oh yes, we all did.

Bear in mind the rationale for this - if anyone uses your code, including compiled or proprietary software, not just FOSS, for anything the stare deems criminal, they can face consequences. They are also expected to police the behaviour and thoughts of their users.

This and the UK's prosecution of Alex Belfield for off-site behaviour done by others now means we've crossed the line into punishing people for other people's behaviour.

We also know why states are so keen on abolishing encryption for individuals.

Strong, independent whores don't need no pimp.

I think you're making the mistake that parties like Labour are in lockstep because they're afraid, not because THEY want these laws too..

I know they want these laws too but they can also have these laws used against them if they're in opposition. That's why they're in lockstep. It can be both, they can want these laws (for when they're in power) but also be afraid of them (when they're not in power).

In terms of the jesters of old, yes - the first person to be executed by the king or queen when they want to assert their power is the jester, the only person who tells the king or queen the truth.

More than likely. Countries do copy the style of the previous winner. And the EBU has now confirmed via unwritten rule that some political messages are permitted at the contest.

You'd think they would look at Sam Ryder and think 'we did well with him, what could we do in future to build on his success', but no, they've reverted back to type with diversity gesturing and moral grandstanding which the rest of Europe does not reward. Maybe if they focused more on talent, staging and producing music that isn't milquetoast, they'd have better results.

I guess the BBC didn't want the cost of staging the event again after 2023 with their financial troubles as of late.

I also class the waving of the transgender, non-binary and the intersex inclusive progressive pride flags to be forms of political statements. But oddly enough, the EBU does not see it that way.

Girlfriend: "My boyfriend not sharing his deepest feelings gives me the 'ick".

Also girlfriend: "My boyfriend sharing his deepest feelings gives me the 'ick".

The game is rigged. You can't win. The only winning move is to not play.

Consoles are subsidised by the games. PC's can't do that so there is a much higher barrier to entry for most people. Most people I know buy consoles and then get the odd game or two on release but trade in and buy most of them second hand via places like CeX. Which is why despite the move to digital, their brick and mortar stores are still doing well compared to their main competitor, GAME. Worse still, graphics card manufacturers, under pressure to sell their latest cards which can cost three consoles, are enticing game companies to up their specifications for games to shift cards and entice people to upgrade on the case of fear of missing out, status and bragging rights.

Oddly enough, the 3DO used the same technique of unsubsidised consoles hoping that competition would naturally bring the price down. It didn't. Its price point caused the console to fail quickly compared to the PlayStation and Saturn that cost half the price.

They're also starting to embrace the concepts of paywalls and games as a service. Eventually financial fatigue with consumers will set in and churn rate will become a problem. You don't get that on PC (at least yet regarding the Windows and Mac platforms).

Divorced middle aged men have better outcomes in dating compared to their long term single male counterparts. And it's for those reasons. It feels counterproductive because what you said sounds logical but we're not dealing with logic when it comes to dating, we deal with observations.

80/20 is going to become 95/5 real soon

That may already be the case. AI will just accelerate matters further toward polygyny.

I suspect what AI is for is to deal with all the complaints from women who deem modern day dating to be "unsafe" and full of "strange creeps" (a.k.a. men they have to reject because they don't find them attractive) and wish for those men to be filtered out. Alongside pressure from western Governments to "protect women's safety".

The most unattractive woman has more options than the average male. And despite what red pill gurus in the manosphere will tell you, it doesn't get easier as you get older unless you have evidence of pre-selection and dating/relationship experience. Long term single men who are consistently striking out in dating won't have that.

The UK Government agrees with this, but not for illegal immigrants. Rather, for critics of the Government and those critical of immigration. First up, Tommy Robinson.

What is it with the BBC and drag queens? They seem to be over-represented when it comes to programmes and commentators.

Seeing concepts taught in evolutionary psychology being removed under rule 16 is concerning. That topic of human nature really has become the modern day heliocentrism that Galileo faced in his day. It's bad enough that another community that you would think would welcome such discussion recently announced that slurs against a group or ideology would constitute a rule violation.

Women seek long term relationships and will engage in short term behaviour to snag a high value man. When she realises he does not need to commit because he has options - younger, fitter options - it is no surprise you see all these articles complaining about Chad not committing.

If she doesn't respect herself, what made her think that others would respect her?

I don't think people realise what's coming. The prices alone I saw when I glanced the consultation document on the proposals Ofcom wants would just take anyone but the big firms offline and would likely result in websites sited outside of the UK to geoblock in order to not pay. And that's before all the bureaucratic red tape and regulation that would make it impractical and unviable. And that's before the concept of whoever is left will just ban by default in fear of fines that would kill them.

It really will be the death of the Internet in the UK by a thousand cuts.

There are two tests Ofcom is requiring websites to take. First, can children access your website? Well, they know what web browsers and phones are, so yes. Second, what mitigations are you implementing to prevent children seeing anything not "safe for kids"?

From what I understand, websites, apps and Internet services will be required to implement:

• ID and age verification for any content that is not "safe for kids". Not just pornography, anything not "safe for kids". Any websites accessible in the UK will have to comply. I suspect many websites will just tell the UK to go away.

• Video facial recognition verification which will be ongoing and live to ensure that a device is not handed over to someone else after the initial verification.

• IP/geo-location to determine if someone is using a VPN or isn't currently in the UK. And if so, block them. Gambling websites do this and streaming websites detect VPN's to enforce geographical deals for copyrighted work.

• Algorithms and moderation that has to err on the side of caution. This will likely just kill off any discussion forum and comment sections while social media platforms will just blanket geoblock posts or delete them to be safe rather than sorry.

The Ofcom consultation for all of this came out today. Do feel free to comment:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/protecting-children-from-harms-online

And we haven't reached the prospect of VPN's being banned yet. Or the potential for FOSS to be banned either on the same grounds of circumventing safety measures. I haven't seen anything that demands operating systems to remove wrongthink apps but it would not surprise me if Ofcom or the Government demands this.

But what they ultimately advocate for and the campaigners want simply isn't possible with the Internet as is. They'd have to shut it down and implement a national Intranet. And frankly, I think they would be determined to do that if they have the chance.

And then they demand the Government take over the role of parent. Some of the regulations being discussed today will make it impossible for many websites to be available in the UK. Which might be their intention, to make it so impractical and unviable to operate that they quit (as we've seen with pornographic websites in some US states after age verification came in) and the Government can either think "good riddance" or replace them.

Russia just banned Rumble. So it's fitting that the UK follows the lead of a country they are supposed to be setting an example against in recent years.

Which is why campaigners want to hand over their responsibilities to the state.

Just to appease the vocal minority while I don't wish tragedy on anyone, what they advocate for in terms of a national Intranet (whether they'll get that far remains to be seen but Ofcom is already complaining about being overwhelmed because they deem the Internet to be unmanageable), a nanny state and abolition of anonymity and privacy (the Government sees the Internet as a public place).

The problem we have is that "online safety" and all the power and control it hands to the state has a consensus across the Uniparty so regardless of Labour or Tory getting it, this is being implemented regardless.