The Prime Minister just gave an unannounced news conference. He is to put in a new framework to allow police to arrest and detain protests for protesting this month.
It looks like the UK will see lèse-majesté and blasphemy laws as well as the outlawing of protest and criticism of politicians in order to 'preserve democracy, protect the religious, safeguard politicians and defeat extremism'. It sounds suspiciously similar to what we saw being announced in Canada in recent days.
All because, and this is key from his speech, George Galloway was elected in Rochdale.
Another reminder to stop using Gmail. I switched many years ago to a privacy based service, everyone else needs to too. Email is easy but Google has monopolies in so many aspects (video platform, street view, web browser control, mobile OS control, heck - my ISP supplied router came with Google DNS by default) that it's practically impossible to remove Google completely without going off grid.
The only way you could counteract this and not go to an advertising model is to charge for everything. Text included. That however considering the costs of bandwidth and storage, would have the effect of pricing people offline.
We already have a precedent for that in the 1980s. PRESTEL. Charged a one off fee for initial access, monthly fee for access, also had surge pricing for peak times per minute and many services charged per page accessed. It only got 90,000 customers at its peak. Treat consumers like a cash cow and assume they have infinite cash for your bandwidth and storage and they vote with their wallets.
The only affordable option at that point would be to touch grass!
Processed ingredients produced at bulk scale compared to growing fruit and vegetables will always make the former cheaper than the latter which if you're on a budget, makes the difference.
The alternative is state intervention and force to make everyone eat healthy and go to the gym. But you still have the problem of demand and supply - which if anything will get worse because you only have so much land (and decreasing with solar farms and new housing) yet loads more mouths to feed. Ironically the UK is looking to do this as part of a forthcoming obesity strategy.
What is missed that if Nintendo ever wins (and I hope they don't) then such a move will call into doubt the legality of reverse engineering and therefore the whole legacy PC ecosystem bar IBM produced systems to boot into Windows, Linux or MS-DOS if you want to go that far back. A whole lot of computers up until the introduction of UEFI will suddenly become illegal. It would be the biggest cutting off of their noses to spite their faces.
I suspect that with the Shamima Begum precedent being set and the UK Government can now strip British citizenship from anyone who is deemed a threat, an extremist or "against the common good", even if it makes them stateless, that it won't be radical preachers, religious extremists and criminals who will be targeted - it'll be Tommy Robinson. I know of a prominent, well respected YouTuber who called yesterday for all protesters to be stripped of citizenship and forced to leave the country in addition. Bear in mind that would also have to include all the opponents of the Iraq War, vaccine mandates and lockdowns.
In a similar vein, they're already trying to unperson Lee Anderson MP because he happened to critique the Mayor of London and hit a raw nerve by speaking an uncomfortable truth, even if you don't agree with how he said it.
Men prefer younger women because they are attracted to fertility, that's common knowledge. And we know that women are attracted to provision from men. Generally, men will have their lives together as they approach their mid 20s - starting a career, being independent and able to drive, but they'll also have pre-selection experience too from their early twenties. The move from adolescence to manhood.
The problem for who are colloquially called the "fine wine copers" is that statistically the gap is only 2-4 years. I've seen many a video of University aged women rating male profiles being sincere when they show disgust at late 20+ year old men who paid for race ratings from real women. Young women, on average, do not want to date and have relationships with substantially older men, despite what Tomassi and Co tell you and waiting until your thirties to date young women will backfire for many men. Not saying it will never happen but while you may have your life in order, you'll lack pre-selection experience (it's why divorced middle aged men do better in dating compared to their long term single counterparts) and encounter the stigma of older men hitting on younger women.
I'd rather people set realistic goals and succeed rather than fail and end back up where they started.
And genetics is a prominent ceiling that you can't overcome sadly. For example, 14% of men are six feet or over but make up over half of CEOs.
The problem isn't self-improvement, it's advice that is unrealistic and any critique of it is handwaved away as a 'negative mindset'. Not everyone can be Elon Musk levels of rich and status by going to the gym and touching grass. It's a sad fact of life but life isn't fair, you can't change your genes and not everyone is going to succeed in life. The self-help gurus and coaches won't tell you that because it's kryptonite to their profitability.
A majority of things about someone are set in genetics from their parents. The idea that everyone is born a blank slate that can gym and work their way to success from absolutely nothing is simply not viable or realistic in all but the most extreme of examples. Of course, self-help gurus and coaches will treat you as a blank slate because the alternative won't make them money. People don't like to hear uncomfortable truths either but alas, reality, nature and evolution doesn't care about people's feelings.
People also tend to see an exception and assume that the rule is null and void. Of course under that logic, heterosexuality would be a myth! But we all know otherwise.
I did watch the video. It's the premise that women wish for something they desire, get it and then regret their choice (which is where the story of the monkey's paw comes in). Joker gives a number of examples of this phenomenon.
It's the way things are going unfortunately. He today put out an hour and a half video. Creators have figured out that there are two ways people watch and listen, clips via TikTok and long form content. The latter makes more money for creators while keeping viewers and listeners away from competitors and loyal to you. I, like you, prefer shorter form content of 20-30 minutes but creators increasingly don't. It is what it is.
That doesn't work for me, I could write a completely innocuous post and it will still be shadowbanned. I haven't figured out what determines what gets shadowbanned but I have known comments with no banned terms and yet it won't shown up in a private tab.
It's something that made Twitter pointless when I had an account there (under a pseudonym) and I am subject to the same problem on YouTube for most of my replies (again, under a pseudonym). I find shadowbanning to be a form of psychological coercive abuse.
If this is happening to people paying for X Premium, there could potentially be an argument to be made in court for obtaining money by deception. Might be class action lawsuit time with someone who has the money to test it in court.
Even at home, you're seeing the same shift toward long form content. For your average household, that's movies and it's why streaming movie viewing is so popular now, despite the hefty price hikes. Everyone I know watches sports and movies, not the thirty to hour long programmes. Even the broadcast channels are heading this way, albeit to shy of an hour long after breaks. The thirty minute programme is becoming a rare breed in prime time.
Even electrical repair content which is normally less than an hour long, the channels can see where things are going and you now have what would have been multiple videos or parts to a video now in one 2 hour video.
If he had made the defence that X is a walled garden and they want free, universal access, then their argument would have had some credibility (which is why Tucker also put his Putin interview on his website too). Instead he goes full Elon Derangement Syndrome.
Yes.