Except they were basically beyond design life.

And every new plant comes decades late and 4x the original budget.

It’s Valve so I’m calling it now. There will be a Steam Deck 2. It wil be awesome.

There will be no Steam Deck 3. The market will take over and Valve will lose interest after the innovation is finished.

It remains to be seen what he’s actually done to benefit anyone who gave him anything.

And he stopped accepting them once he entered the office. We found out because he told us about it all and the mistake of accepting some gifts a bit too late.

With the only arguable benefits being publicity for the brand it’s not nothing but it really is daft the perspective tricks that have been played with that particular molehill. It’s the press that actually gave the gifters the benefits, not any actions by Starner himself.

Being given something isn’t proof of being bought. Acting for the person who gave you something is.

I predict that as the COVID era corruption comes to light his previous job will result in him prosecuting and recovering quite a lot of public money. Sadly I don’t think he will get a result of jail time for anyone. The laws just aren’t in place for that and he can’t get them made retrospectively.

A UK constitution would be very interesting. But I’d just settle for some actual laws specifically against corruption rather than relying on MPs following conventions and being honourable.

The shocking thing is that hundreds of millions of pounds worth of corruption through the “fast lane” wasn’t illegal to do. We’ll only be able to recoup from the companies who actually didn’t deliver their contracts.

He’s a prosecutor who apparently can’t be bought.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/tax-authorities-should-prosecute-evaders-keir-starmer

That’s far more dangerous to a billionaire than a firebrand.

If Starner only delivers a non-corrupt legal system it’ll be an incredible win for the Country. But I do think he needs 10 years in office so he should focus on actually winning the next election.

Look into the maintenance costs of Germany’s 1970s reactors before calling an entire nation brain dead.

The cost of nuclear today is high and continues for thousands of years. Cost is the entire problem.

Nuclear power isn’t green, it’s just at the beginning of the cycle where it’s waste is seen as a small problem because there isn’t a lot of it. Like fossil fuels were a century ago.

Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of suitable places to put nuclear waste so the small amount we already have is already causing problems in Europe. The US being a bigger place may get to that point a little later than us. But nuclear waste stores are already oversubscribed in the UK, Germany, and France.

Nuclear power is short sighted.

The money spent should be on renewables and grid storage. Then more efficient heating and insulation.

Not nuclear, not carbon capture.

Proponents of nuclear power never look at the total lifecycle cost of a reactor. In fact it’s usually deliberately hidden.

Nuclear reactors have always been and will always be military technology. They should be funded as military spending.

By all means put a price on carbon so they can get a better price on energy but the military should be funding the reactors they need and dealing with the waste out of their budgets.

Trains are easy and they’re easily electrified already. So putting solar on the trains won’t have any advantage.

Rails are the difficult part of railways. They never seem to put them between my house and my work. They’ve put something called a road in between instead.

Not when you consider the maintenance costs of the plants they closed. Basically of them were beyond original design life.

And the democracy sausage!

Incorrect

Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.

The US ranges from failure to bad.

Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that’s trusted internationally.

Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn’t relevant anywhere else.

Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.

There are no illusions that politicians are experts.

Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.

Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.

I’ve said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I’m antidemocratic.

The difference between you and me is you’re sprouting ideology and I’m explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.

Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.

Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.

As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it’s much more efficient and successful most of the time.

So the problem with elected judges is the elections.

There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.

There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won’t.

Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.

Partisan politics is avoidable.

Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.

Well if that’s the meaning of "political you’re using then all judges are. That’s why I put it in quotes in my last reply, I assumed you meant partisan. Otherwise you’d have been making an irrelevant point.

Unfortunately the US has a storied history of elected local judges allowing lynchings, for example, while the appointed federal courts passed civil rights so I won’t be taking notes.

Of course the appointed judges and elected judges are now targeting women and minorities. So your appointment system is also broken.

Again, not taking notes.

An attempt to be representative is not equal to being “political”.

It’s actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.

No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.

There’s no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.

The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.

Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.

VLC

Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.

Is the internet scarier?

Or is it just millennials and “internet natives” having kids and more of them knowing better what the internet actually is.

I tell people to imagine a public place with everyone in it, the majority wearing masks or costumes. With constantly recording surveillance. Do you take off your mask.

Sure the mask is not perfect protection, and there are areas off to the side where people seem to not be wearing masks. But go ahead and choose a way to keep your kids safe.

Honestly, Zoom just has a hilariously high frequency of vulnerabilities being discovered.

Let’s set the sentence for executing an innocent man to, death.

The first barrier to the death penalty is to make sure verdicts are right 100% of the time.

After that you can begin the debate about **whether it’s moral at all.