I'm actually not sure exactly what the purpose of ESNI is but if you look at the implementation if the server you connecting to is publicly known then ESNI is not private. I might be missing something, but you can just build up a database of ESNI record_digest to server name mappings. The limitation being you can only build this up for servers you know about. Also, I guess it doesn't work for SSL servers that are terminating multiple domains because they are able to use the same key for a bunch of different domains. I guess this is the purpose of ESNI :)
The establishment in the UK which the BBC is very much a part of is heavily remain. Teresa May is also very much a Remainer and is trying to sell a deal to the public that would exit the UK from the EU in name only. Cameron stood down from the Prime Ministership because he didn't believe Brexit was the correct decision. If May wasn't interested in carrying out Brexit she should have followed Cameron's example and not taken the leadership.
As someone living in the UK I think the EU holding trade with the EU as a hostage is disgraceful. I understand the EU has real concerns about rule harmonisation it wants to protect and the UK leaving the Union is going to put pressure on that. However, let us say the UK exited the EU tomorrow. What effect would this have on the rules the UK operates under and would this negatively effect the EU enough that it would make sense for them to end trade with the UK? My guess is there would be very little initial change in the law in the UK. Initially I'm guessing the UK would end the jurisdiction of the ECJ, end free labour movement of EU citizens to the UK and stop taking new legislation from the EU. However, note that on day 1 probably all of the laws effecting trade and harmonisation of rules would still most likely be in place. It would make more sense in the no-deal situation for the EU to keep the current free trade in place and introduce exceptions as the UK begins to drift from the common market rules or negotiates free-er trade agreements with other countries that would undermine the harmonisation rules.
What should be the solution to this problem? If ICE is going to arrest parents then it seems like the only options open to ICE are keep the parents in custody with children, or keep parents in custody and put children in a separate custody. I assume ICE are putting parents and children in separate custody because they don't have suitable custody to hold both parents and children. Like if ICE are using regular jails to hold parents then it is not really possible to put children in there as well. If ICE come up with a solution to hold parents and children in custody that is suitably safe would people currently concerned about ICE find this an acceptable solution? I know other countries like Australia have special detention centers for 'illegal immigrants' that hold both parents and children.
I also understand that people might just see enforcement of immigration laws especially in regards to children as so distressful that we either should not enforce the laws or we should remove the laws. However, it seems in the past that lax enforcement has led to the situation where we have almost free immigration for people willing to work in jobs that would not require documentation (ie: unskilled jobs) and unfree immigration for people who want to work other jobs. Would people who want to see immigration laws not enforced also be willing to support completely removing immigration laws and any protectionist work policies that favour nativists so we have a better mix of immigration?
'The caretaker tells you each, individually, that together you can see either 18 or 20 statues. '
as being:
as opposed to:
i would have assumed they would add the word distinct if they wanted to not double count overlapping statues.