rah

joined 2 years ago
[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Christ I just saw that you're OP. I'm confused; why did you use the word "enshittification" if you didn't know what it meant?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

it arguably comes under the umbrella or enshitification

How so?

"first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

That's not enshitification?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

LOL the failure isn't mine

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think I see what you've been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn't say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC's verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC's verdict not actually changing anything.

Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody "saying one thing and doing another". The critical part is that with "the SC's verdict not actually changing anything" you're presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.

My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I know what she said

I'm confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn't pass

"to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests."

From what I can tell, this isn't about creating a registry of trans people, this is about collecting "sex at birth" alongside other data for any "identity verification requests" which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.

  • The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
  • The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
  • Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.

I don't understand how you went from this stuff you've linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 3 weeks ago

Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?

I'm confused. Isn't syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

I notice you've completely failed to address my main point

I notice you've completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn't the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I'm glad to hear that.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

I'm curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

 

The deal – which will grant EU fishers access to British waters for an additional 12 years – will remove checks on a significant number of food products as well as a deeper defence partnership and agreements on carbon taxes.

The UK said the deal would make “food cheaper, slash red tape, open up access to the EU market”. But the trade-off for the deal was fishing access and rights for an additional 12 years – more than the UK had offered – which is likely to lead to cries of betrayal from the industry.

The two sides will also begin talks for a “youth experience scheme”, first reported in the Guardian, which could allow young people to work and travel freely in Europe again and mirror existing schemes the UK has with countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

The government said it would put £360m of modernisation support back into coastal communities as part of the deal, a tacit acknowledgment of the concession.

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20676198

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nz/post/21414090

The memo, shared with The Grocer, warns food businesses are woefully unprepared for challenges including soil degradation, extreme weather events, global heating and water scarcity and that yield, quality and predictability of food supply are all at severe risk.

It goes on to claim that companies’ risk mitigation strategies are being assured by major audit and assurance firms and giving false confidence to investors, whereas the true threat to the supply chain is far greater than companies have acknowledged.

 

North Korea sends its troops to Russia to further participate in the war against Ukraine in exchange for money and nuclear technology.

Kyrylo Budanov, Chief of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, stated this in a comment to The Economist.

It is noted that North Korea does not give its people or weapons to Russia for free. Moscow pays money and transfers technology for this.

According to Budanov, Russia is helping North Korea to circumvent sanctions and “strengthen” its nuclear capabilities. In particular, it shares some technologies for tactical nuclear weapons and submarine-launched missile systems.

The expanded cooperation between the two countries in the military sphere is not happening out of the blue but is the result of a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement signed by Putin and DPRK leader Kim Jong-un in June of this year.

 

Ukraine is seriously considering the possibility of restoring nuclear weapons. This is reported by Bild with reference to a source.

“We have the materials, we have the knowledge. If there is an order, it will only take us a few weeks to get the first bomb,” said a Ukrainian official.

And Western countries should think less about Russia’s red lines and much more about Ukraine’s red lines.

According to analyst Julian Repke, a condition for restoring the nuclear weapons Ukraine has surrendered could be a second attempt by the Russian Federation to go after Kyiv.

 

Western officials believe they have evidence that Chinese companies have secretly supplied weapons to Russia in what could amount to a significant escalation of Beijing’s involvement in the Ukraine war.

A new report obtained by allies points to a Chinese company sending a range of purpose-built military drones to Russia for testing, with the ultimate destination being Ukraine, The Times understands.

The deal occurred last year, according to a western official, who was unable to disclose the name of the company. However, they said there was “clear evidence now that Chinese companies are supplying Russia with deadly weapons for use in Ukraine”.

“While the Chinese government might not admit it, they are going to struggle to keep their increasing support under wraps,” added the official, appearing to accuse Beijing of being involved or aware of the delivery.

They also confirmed a Reuters report from earlier in the week that Russia is believed to have established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones for use in the war against Ukraine.

 

Open-source seismic recordings published on Wednesday and Thursday, among them by the Norwegian seismic monitoring group NORSAR, picked up 13 explosions around Toropets taking place during or in the hours after the Ukrainian attack. Each “seismic event” registered at between 2.0-2.8 magnitude, with energy comparable to a small earthquake, news reports said.

Outlying homes in three villages located a half kilometer or less from the north fence of the facility were damaged, according to news reports. Some local social media reported the village Tsikarevo, less than 300 meters from Toropets’ northeastern security fence, was completely destroyed. The local television news platform RBC-TV reported fires had surrounded and consumed several villages and towns, forcing hundreds of people to flee their homes.

Social media recorded smoke and fires burning throughout the day, and explosions continuing for hours as individual munitions cooked off. Some video showed people identifying themselves as residents of Tsikarevo and stating they had no way to escape the conflagration but by boat via a nearby lake, because explosions at Toropets had flattened nearby forests and made all roads impassable.

 

Japan's Defense Ministry reported that it scrambled fighter jets after two Russian patrol aircraft were detected flying in circles around the country.

Although the Russian planes did not enter Japanese airspace, their proximity raised significant concerns. This incident marks the first such military activity around Japan since 2019, when Russian bombers breached Japanese airspace.

The Russian Tu-142 aircraft were tracked traveling from the sea between Japan and South Korea towards the southern Okinawa region, according to Digi24.

They then proceeded north over the Pacific Ocean, reaching the northern island of Hokkaido. In response, the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force launched an urgent interception of the Russian planes.

The Russian aircraft also flew over the disputed Kuril Islands, known as the "Northern Territories" in Japan.

view more: next ›