moderatecentrist

joined 2 months ago
[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk -3 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

This view might be controversial but here goes. If someone is suspected of a major crime (rape, serious assault, murder, major theft), maybe it's okay for law enforcement to gain access to that person's online accounts.

People might say "but if the government has the power to do that, one day they could do it to you, or they could use those powers to oppress anybody who criticises the government". But isn't that like saying "if you build prisons then one day an authoritarian government might put any critic of the government in those prisons"?

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 65 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

My understanding of the situation, in steps:

  1. American billionaires want to make maximum money
  2. This requires minimum regulations
  3. The EU imposes regulations
  4. Therefore American billionaires and their political party (Republicans) want to break up the EU
[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know if the right solution is a customs union, or participation in some areas of the single market, or something else. I just read that the UK's post-Brexit arrangements "will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU", so presumably if we boost trade with Europe in certain ways, it should increase British productivity

Related to your post: I've seen people from Lemmy.ml defend imperialist behaviour from Russia and China. Surely the left is supposed to oppose imperialism - whether it's from the US, Europe, Russia, China, or anywhere else.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Increasing our trade with Europe (whether it's with a customs union or some other measure) would be good for two reasons:

  1. It would grow the British economy, create more good jobs, increase wages, and increase the amount of money raised in taxes for public services
  2. It would annoy Brexiteers

There are many affordable goods that can be bought from countries that aren't the US or China. I actually think I would rather buy things that aren't from the US or China. Both of those countries don't seem to like Europe or the UK very much.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Actually it's your post that doesn't matter. If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I originally was responding to this post:

Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they’re in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain.

I'm saying Ukraine's current position is not "solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain". Two reasons for this:

  1. Even if you think "western powers" haven't fulfilled "their side of the bargain", this wouldn't be the sole reason for Ukraine's position. Another probably more important reason is that Russia chose to invade Ukraine.
  2. Arguably "western powers", under the Budapest Memorandum, did fulfil "their side of the bargain". The US and the UK (parties to the Budapest Memorandum) didn't seem to commit to fighting a war if Ukraine came under attack. That being said, I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine at the moment.

Now do you understand it?

Edit: I was rude in this post originally but I've taken away some of the rudeness. To be honest, the post I'm responding to is incredibly rude. Clearly the person who wrote that DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 0 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Sure, if Ukraine had kept their nukes and maintained them, they might not be in this current position.

But anyway, I was responding to the post that said "they’re [Ukraine] in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain".

In my view that just isn't true. Their current position is not "solely" because they put faith into western powers who haven't delivered. Their current position is happening because the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine. I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine, but western powers didn't make Russia invade Ukraine. It also seems to me that western powers probably have upheld "their side of the bargain" under the Budapest Memorandum, although like I say, I hope western powers do more to help Ukraine.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 2 points 5 days ago (5 children)

I'm talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don't think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you're saying that those two countries didn't do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.

Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn't invade Ukraine.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 2 points 5 days ago

I looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The main commitments seem to be a commitment to not use force against Ukraine, and a commitment to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine... if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression".

I absolutely hope that every country supports Ukraine and helps them at the moment. I'm just saying that it seems to me that Russia is the one who has abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don't know if you can say that the US and the UK have (Wikipedia says that France and China gave assurances in separate documents, not in the Budapest Memorandum). Although I absolutely hope that the US will take a more pro-Ukraine stance as soon as possible.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 2 points 5 days ago (7 children)

I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine".

Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn't say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven't used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

There's another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine... if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression". It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn't do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don't their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

 

I will be supportive of anybody who leads the Labour Party because where I come from we vote Labour and that will always be the case...

...So if it's Keir Starmer. I will vote for Keir Starmer. If it's Andy Burnham, I'll vote for Andy Burnham. If its Wes Streeing, I'll vote for him or whoever it could be in the future...

...I thought that was a big mistake, Brexit. And I think it's probably been proven correct.

Thoughts?

 

“Rockstar has just carried out the most blatant and ruthless act of union busting in the history of the games industry,” IWGB [trade union] president Alex Marshall said in a statement provided to The Verge.

Alan Lewis, head of global corporate communications at Rockstar parent company Take-Two Interactive, responded, telling The Verge the firings were “for gross misconduct, and for no other reason,” without elaborating further.

Thoughts?

 

The victory of Milei's party comes after Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to Argentina if Milei's party lost the election.

This is despite Trump previously being critical of "foreign interference" in the 2024 US presidential election, when members of the UK's ruling Labour party assisted (in a personal capacity) the campaign of Kamala Harris.

Rules for thee but not for me, I guess.

 

Thoughts?

 

Do you think Sir Keir...

  1. ...will be replaced as Labour leader?
  2. ...should be replaced as Labour leader?
 

Thoughts on this? I guess a working class northerner probably wouldn't be given this job?

 

I enjoyed this bit:

"I love ChatGPT," the blond-mopped Brexiteer told Al Arabiya English earlier this week.

Famous for making stuff up and going on flights of fancy, Johnson served as prime minister from July 2019 until September 2022, when he was ousted after misleading colleagues over a scandal involving his government's deputy chief whip, the party disciplinarian. OpenAI's ChatGPT is also prone to making statements that turn out not to be entirely true.

 

Here's my attempt to explain the situation in a brief way. DHH, the creator of Ruby on Rails, wrote some things which are considered racist by some people. This caused a prominent Ruby programmer to withdraw his large sponsorship of Ruby Central, a non-profit which organises Ruby conferences, because DHH spoke at one of their conferences. Therefore Ruby Central ended up very dependent on Shopify, a large company, for funding. One theory (mentioned in the article) is that Shopify (where DHH is a board member) then pressured Ruby Central to perform a "hostile takeover" of the RubyGems GitHub organisation, where they revoked the maintainer privileges of long-time contributors. What is RubyGems? It's a website which is the de facto standard source for "gems", which are Ruby packages. I guess this is equivalent to NPM in the Node/JavaScript world.

If you want to know the potentially racist stuff said by DHH, he essentially seemed to be unhappy that London is "no longer full of native Brits". He says "native Brits" now make up "about a third" of London. So by "native Brits" he seems to mean the White British ethnic group, because they made up 37% of London in the 2021 census.

The Ruby programmer who withdrew his sponsorship of Ruby Central (allegedly worth $250,000 according to the article) said this: "I rescinded a six-figure grant because the org invited DHH, a white supremacist, to speak. We cannot tolerate hateful people as leaders in our communities."

The "hostile takeover" of RubyGems has led some Ruby programmers to create an alternative to the RubyGems website. This alternative is gem.coop. Also there is an open letter signed by influential Ruby programmers which calls for Ruby on Rails to be forked so that DHH no longer has an association with it.

The article that this post links to is an update to the situation: Ruby Central is now taking steps to try and cool the controversy.

Thoughts on this?

Edit: fixed typo.

 

He has said:

I take no position per se on Brexit... But, I quite often get asked a second question: what's the impact on economic growth?

And the answer is that for the foreseeable future it is negative.

Thoughts on this?

 

Thoughts?

 

Some people in Birmingham are putting up anti-racism posters to express opposition to hate incidents. Also of course there have been the flags going up on lamp posts which the article says have "caused fear and anxiety".

Thoughts?

Six neighbours (three men and three women) standing on a pavement in their neighbourhood. The woman in the middle of the photo is holding a sign which says "Brummies united against racism & hate crime", with three hashtags underneath: "#brumunited", "#fightracism", and "#noplaceforhate".

 

This Hamas official has said a couple of interesting things:

  1. He doesn't want Sir Tony Blair (former UK prime minister) involved in the governance of Gaza, despite Trump's plan for the region proposing this.
  2. Hamas doesn't plan to disarm, unless they are giving their weapons to a future Palestinian army.

Quote about the first point:

"When it comes to Tony Blair, unfortunately, we Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims and maybe others around the world have bad memories of him... We can still remember his role in killing, causing thousands or millions of deaths to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq... We can still remember him very well after destroying Iraq and Afghanistan."

Quote about the second point:

Dr Naim said Hamas would not completely disarm and that weapons would only be handed over to the Palestinian state, with fighters integrated into the Palestinian National Army... "No one has the right to deny us the right to resist the occupation of armies," he said.

Thoughts on this?

view more: next ›