1rre @ 1rre @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

3

Comments

592

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not at all, they're both disgusting groups of people (as were & are unionist extremists) who ruined the lives of people they claim to be liberating

Frankly they're incredibly similar organisations

Nice necromancy you been practicing?

Funding one of the biggest terrorist organisations of the 20th century doesn't sound like a very good thing to do... Same goes for all the other Americans who gave them money without realising they were (are) pretty much universally hated across all Ireland - much like how most Muslims hate IS

The dictionary definition is "Anything twisted, winding, or spiral." but an inference can be made

Helico means spinning and pter means pter

Not a single word but equestrian and horse being closely related and both decended from krsos (if you say it out loud you can hear the similar to both horse and latin equs)

It depends on the news you read. If you look at the polls, Scotland isn't in favour of independence and NI has never been in favour of joining the Republic.

If you're reading news that says the UK is about to fall apart I could point you in the direction of some equally wrong news saying that Italy, Poland etc. are about to leave the EU

Neither truly needs the other - both are hurt by Brexit but they're both getting along ok without the other (although brexit was far softer than people tend to realise - aside from a few very major things the UK is still de facto in a lot of EU institutions, and not including issues caused by Russian invasions)

I'd disagree - it hurts both the EU and the withdrawing nation to have a nation withdraw, so saying "if you withdraw you will end up coming back, but on terms more beneficial to us" is a good move for the EU to further decay eurosceptic movements around Europe. Letting places rejoin on the same terms would encourage eurosceptics as they'd say "we can always rejoin on the same terms"

I meant recent/ongoing, as I imagine the OP did in their caption, but I see how the confusion arose reading the comment in isolation.

That said, the Soviet Union did do their fair share of meddling in post-colonial Africa so it wouldn't shock me, but I can't remember which countries they were involved in off the top of my head so I couldn't say yes or no with any real confidence

Nice strawman.

I'm saying that the French people make it be known (as they're so good at making things known to the government - probably the best in the world) that they don't want their government to continue abusing their former colonies, then hopefully that gets pushed up the agenda for prospective parties, who then go on to organise a transition to full self rule. If that had happened before we wouldn't be having this discussion, so not only are you constructing a strawman by using the acts of former French governments against a hypothetical future one, you're not even destructing it properly as you're just saying "look this happened before" rather than actually giving reasons as to why your hypothetical future French strawman government would go against the will of their voters to maintain control over their former colonies.

That's a fair point, however it's hard to see the EU making an example when it's so in its interest not to... Chances are they'd end up getting some hard proofs in terms of legislation commiting the UK to the EU for a lengthy time period and maybe some other "commitments" which don't boil down to anything but look firm to members and citizens (as loved by governments everywhere who want to look like they're doing things while also not wanting to do those same things)

Oh no, are you having hallucinations? Because last I checked the majority of coups in former French Africa were Russia/Wagner backed so there's no strawman in sight.

Critical support for every coup in Africa

Hurr durr Western imperialism bad Russian imperialism good

Why don't we get France (a democracy) to pressure their leaders to set up free and fair elections then get the fuck out after they're done (simplifying things here as it's a slow process to not create a power vacuum) rather than supporting a like-for-like swap of France for Russia or Chinese control of the country through debt?

I'm not against the premise of the post, just the caption which reads like mindless Russophilia

I disagree - on paper sure they would, but at the end of the day the UK is the ≈2nd biggest economy in Europe (UK and France make up 2nd & 3rd and who is bigger changes every couple of years), unlike Georgia or Moldova or whoever else where their joining is barely noticeable.

That means that the EU is more likely to want the UK to join, vs smaller countries wanting to join the EU, although it would be mutually beneficial of course - the UK would likely increase the EU's power a little more than the EU would increase the UK's power, but saying that hides the fact that it'd probably be a 10+% increase in both cases.

Of course the EU could make an example of the UK if they were want to rejoin, but if they were to look at it objectively then they'd most likely reach the conclusion that the negatives of making the concessions they made before are far outweighed by the additional collective power of having the UK as a member.

And yet while anger is directed at the 1%, the party in government get all their money from them so they raise taxes and make efforts to disperse the wealth of the 9% between the two as they neither fund the government nor are a big enough voting bloc for them to care - many of the 90% consider them the same anyway as when you have no disposable income or worse then having some disposable income may as well be having more money than you know what to do with, so taxing the 9% gets the vote of much of the 90%

I mean if you have a car then 0.3% of your net worth is probably at least $1

If you don't want to donate $1 because you think someone else should be donating more then you're worse than them

I'm not saying you should, just that if you don't you shouldn't judge them

那个, that could never happen right?

A rough estimate for global life expectancy. It's actually slightly over 73, so the chances of dying in a car accident are marginally higher than I said.

The data I used wasn't related to driving frequency or age, it was purely the number of people in a random global sample of 100,000 people you would expect to die in a car accident in a given year. That of course includes people of all ages and people who never drive at all, but also taxi & HGV drivers. Even if we say people aren't in cars so much under the age of 5 or over the age of 60, that would push up the deaths per 100,000 people per year between 5 and 60 by the exact amount to keep the chance per year over a human lifetime at 17.4/100000.

Ok so sure there's nothing on Tesla's autopilot, however that's not to say there's nothing on autonomous systems...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431415/

In 2018 and 2017, 6,735,000 and 6,453,000 traffic crashes occurred in the United States, which resulted in 33,919 and 34,560 deaths, respectively.

https://www.orsa.org.uk/reducing-occupational-road-risk/reducing-driver-error-accidents/

In reality, car crashes aren’t accidents and 94% are due to human error In 2011, British police officers attended 118,404 road traffic collisions (figures from the Department of Transport). In 42% of these crashes, the most frequently reported factor was that the driver ‘failed to look properly’. The second most commonly listed factor for 21% of the crashes was the driver ‘failing to judge the other person’s path or speed’. The third most common contributing factor was the driver being actually ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and this accounted for 16% of the crashes.

There's your stats on humans being reckless and dangerous when driving cars, and of course there's nothing concrete for fully autonomous cars because they aren't legal anywhere, but here's some stats on pretty much every existing driver assist - notably they all prevent accidents compared to just a human driving: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431415/

It really isn't a stretch from the 3 most frequent crash causes being human error and human assistance tools reducing accident frequency a bunch to say that all these systems coming together (as they cover near enough everything to do with driving a car) would be safer than a human driver, but I don't doubt you'll deny it as you're asking for something impossible to give (as governments haven't allowed full autonomous driving cars yet, so there's no statistics on their use) and so aren't actually looking for information but to confirm your biases and feel like you've "won", despite the fact there's no objectively unsuspicious data on the exact situation you're asking for meaning that you can't prove yourself right either beyond "I'm a little suspicious of this company so I must be right"