oohaargh

There's a difference between being a British colony and allowing Britain to have a military base on your land, so nothing in disagreement with the original post there

This one's very personal, it's only a good thing to do if you genuinely really enjoy it.

I used to be a maths teacher and I love maths, and would do it for fun outside of my job. That in turn often helped with the job itself, and certainly helped to keep my interest in the subject alive even when 90% of the job was teaching fairly basic stuff that wasn't particularly exciting.

I'm now a software engineer - I'm much happier in my job, but I don't love writing code enough to ever want to be doing it outside the 40 hours a week I'm paid for. I'm slightly jealous of the people who do, because I know first-hand that it's a great way to do better at work and keep feeling fresh and interested in what you do, but forcing yourself to do it doesn't bring any of the same benefits.

Mate, the whole article is 11 sentences, including the bit that explains what a gif is, and 2 of those 11 sentences answer your question

Not an expert in the law or in this case, but blocking large companies from acquiring other companies which operate in the same space in order to cement monopolies is a pretty fundamental part of what a competition regulator is there for, it's hardly "bad law" or some arbitrary campaign against facebook

Absolutely terrifying.

The worst bit isn't even that it crashed - these things are complicated and they can can go wrong, and the setup of the aviation industry is supposed to (and historically did) result in a full blameless post mortem which identified root cause issues and made sure the same thing could never happen again.

That very clearly hasn't happened here, the system is broken, and I'd have difficulty trusting any new Boeing plane at this point

You really think of human rights as an exclusively American idea?

I'm not surprised you can't see what my comment is getting at

The English have done alright for philosophers, but I'm not sure human rights have ever been a particularly strong suit in the UK. Sadly it's not looking like improving any time soon

It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane.

The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship).

The idea that a UK citizen has these rights by default because they're in the US Bill of Rights, and can then have these rights deprived of them _by their own government_ is the part of this that is hilariously American. Of course, if it was the US government taking the action then that would be a different story altogether, but the US isn't involved at any point

This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this

If you think that's in the Russian government's interest you haven't been looking at what they're up to too closely.

Russia isn't really that big a player globally (GDP quite a bit less than Italy's for example), but they've realised they can wield a substantial amount more power by just chaotically screwing things up for their opponents.

It's the same pattern in their cyber attacks, election interference, middle east policy, online disinformation spreading, etc etc. None of it's directly for their own benefit, it's purely to harm opponents.