Although it should have ruined his eligibility to be elected.

Failing that, his party should have kept him off the ballot.

Failing that, it should have ruined his ability to campaign.

Failing that it should have meant he was deemed a poor candidate and received few votes.

Yet here we are with rapists, crooks and fearmongers in control of government with the safeguards removed.

Plus banks are a pain to get to and do deposits. Cash is risky and costly to deal with. CC charges a fee, so maybe those costs are less visible as it’s skimmed right off the top, but many retailers just pass that on,

I mean he wanted to nuke hurricanes ffs.

That’s corporate speak for “we didn’t want it to do that and we don’t approve”. Usually followed by a platitude about correcting it.

I’ve never really used Linux as a daily driver. Back in the same Ubuntu period as you, intrialled it but got sick of software compatibility problems. So much is cloud web based these days, that it’s less of an issue.

What surprised me as a distro hopped looking for my home laptop flavourz was how different it was to install different software, such as docker. Some distros it was a hassle to run well. Some it needed workarounds, whichh surprised me.

So, I’d look at what you plan to run, then decide between opensuse, pop, mint or fedora and how easy they support what you want to do. I dipped back into Ubuntu but they have started to make some m$ style choices where you have to take back control as they try to make your PC act like they want not how you want.

All can be made to support whatever you want but not all do our of the box.

Yes, when China first started supporting Russia, much commentary noted that and made the point that Russia was desperate for allies and products and China anted to increase influence, so could use the increased relationship to their advantage to exert control over Russia, through the use of financial tools.

Yes, nobody wants tariffs, but China is already facing them from USA, so they are more at risk.bthe EU won’t want retaliation from China but they also don’t want Russia to continue to affect their economy and stability. China would have to choose and they would choose Europe as they are not natural allies with Russia anyway, and Russia won’t buy much off them. China needs huge amounts of resources, some of which Russia has, but they are moving away from fossil fuels faster than europe and USA and Russia.

Likely economically. Currently China will be wary of USA sanctions on trump and Russia having favour from trump. They won’t want to be on the outside o while their economy is already slowing down.

My dad was going grey, so my brother bought him ‘just for men’ hair dye, which he opened at the Christmas dinner table with the entire family. He was about 9. We still laugh about it.

Good job on not serving her. Unfortunately in service culture where the customer is always right, there often is no blowback from customers being rude or unreasonable. There needs to be pushback, even small victories are still a win.

Some of those negative stereotypes were started as a method to dehumanise and control. As one of those stereotypes that notes racism each time I’m in the UK, it’s definitely not a case of British people thinking they are not better than others.

Which goes back to the point about France and Germany being able to control the momentum with a third of the population.

Yes, you can choose to lay out your wishes. Many do, just like opt in or opt out organ donation. However, if you don’t lay out your wishes, you will still end up buried or cremated or something similar without consent.

I’m not saying that’s wrong. We can’t just leave dead bodies where they lie. It also provides comfort to families to practice burial rites. My point is that technically you are still making decisions about what to do with somebodies body parts without consent, as they can no longer consent. Is there really a difference? If they care that much, will they just opt out?

I know some countries, they used to let you specify which organs, but then people opted out of eyes. So they removed the option and it was just donor or not. People still consented, without opting out of eyes. Is that better, or is that manipulating consent?

We don’t get their consent to be buried or cremated or whatever else people do with the remaining bodies of their loved ones. It’s just opt out. Why should organ donation, which provides a societal and personal benefit be different?

Yes, but even Meloni and Trump are more liberal than their counterparts from previous bouts of fascism.

I wonder if the increasing complexity of our economies and societies is insulating us a little from the worst effects, even if some of that complexity is driving the lurch right for those who are feeling the pain

Not on a per person basis. China also does the most to combat climate change, purely by virtue of its population. It also does the most research, has the most homed people, has the most fed people, delivers the most babies etc etc.

When dealing with different countries with wildly different populations, it’s the amount per person and change per person that counts the most.

Unfortunately, by dividing by country, it becomes a game theory problem in that the actions you do don’t have an effect. It’s collective actions that work. As this becomes more imperative, the cost of those not acting will not be borne by countries that are and they will be punished in trade tariffs.

I would also expect an I crease in carbon tariffs worldwide. They are allowable under wto rules and with the USA implementing tariffs, other countries will seek ways to do the same while protecting themselves. The USA not following two rules would be a boon to China and Russia to ignore patent laws. It will be carrot and stick.

I think that most western countries are converging on economic, taxation and liberal values that align. As developing countries catch up, to meet entry criteria, I expect it will expand east and south, potentially with some trading partners joining or aligning more closely. As the block gets bigger, it becomes more important to trade with, so it may hit a point where everyone wants in, but has to follow their rules. Or it stagnates and never gets there and dissolves over time, either because it’s no longer needed or it’s not fit for purpose.

I think the next 20 years will be telling, especially what happens to Britain and Ukraine in that time.

I get that, which is why my response pointed out that it’s not as simple as a majority of a veto, but that France/Germany combined has a large population bloc that means without them, it’s very unlikely to happen.

Each countries sovereignty remaining is part of the EUs strength, but also it’s weakness. Things like immigration are a trans continent problem and variations in policy, numbers of immigrants and refugees is problematic, even with Schengen. Cross border policies while retaining sovereignty are very difficult. Complex, and difficult to gain consensus.

The opacity of all this, with much of the EU business less visible than national governments, means there is less political capital to make things happen quicker when needed.

Yes, and there are loose coalitions between those disparate parties. Usually 65% of the EU population needs to be represented by how it works. A majority of states with a majority of people voting for something to pass. So France and Germany can hold things up with just a few smaller states. As it happens, France and Germany are more inclined to want to advance the EU rules rather than hold them up, but their combined size gives them an oversized power, which is not necessarily a bad thing given how many people they represent.

Greece was frustrated by Germany when they had to practice austerity. Germany often pushes for financial rules that are beneficial to their export economy.