I agree and would add that it's a particularly good time to be a Linux gamer. I recently started downloading games in Fedora on my dual booted machine and so many games support Linux officially now, I think the success of steam deck has contributed to this.
For games that don't officially support Linux, Steam's Proton means most of mine bar two run perfectly on Fedora.
I haven't booted up Windows in months, a good outcome.
So the Queen read bills and gave her opinion on them, which is public record, before they were debated? And that constitutes political power?
It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it.
I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way.
I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did.
Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc.
I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.
> The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped).
This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.
The monarch has not exercised direct political power since the English Civil War.
Yes they’re wealthy and have exercised power that wealth gives you but they’d still be wealthy if they were not a monarch.
If we want to talk about the power that money brings you in politics then we’re having a different discussion, a discussion that is not UK specific.
But yes the monarchy as an institution has not involved itself in political matters in living memory, and has not exercised political power (executive orders, vetoing bills) in centuries.
Parliament is the sovereign political power in the UK. If they wanted to they could pass a bill today that dismantled the crown and the monarchy.
Personally I like having a politically neutral head of state as a personification of the country.
An elected head of state will be impossible to keep politically neutral and inevitably will polarise things.
Maybe a system with an appointed head of state instead of elected, similar to peerages in the House of Lords. Someone vetted and trusted, approved by an elected parliament.
Although the Monarchy is already completely controlled by parliament which is democratically elected so I’m not sure what the difference would be.
Yeah I do the same. It seems to permeate into everything, even positives.
UK announcing research into x: comments will probably be negative and about how it’s a boondoggle.
UK company doing exciting stuff like fusion or quantum: comments will probably be negative and about how it’s a boondoggle.
It’s tiring.
Edit:
That being said it does lead to hilarious moments where I’ll read the Guardian and see a headline like “The NHS won’t make it to Christmas (for real this time) but it doesn’t matter because we’ll all be dead by then because of Brexit” and then I’ll see the Express in my corner shop with a headline like “Brexit HERO Boris makes Ursula von der Leyen CRY when he announced new BRITISH MOON BASE”
In general there seems to be a weird zeitgeist of negative exceptionalism in the UK at the moment.
Not sure why but generally journos seem to write about issues like they are only hitting the UK when a simple google search shows they aren’t.
It does come across like a weird concerted effort to paint the UK as collapsing since leaving the EU. The majority of journos seem to be able to write only negatively about UK current affairs unless you read something like The Express who are delusional in their own right.
Most recent ones I can think of are the failed space launch and British volt going under.
These were both highly ambitious projects that had a high chance of failure, especially the space launch. It’s unlikely you’re going to get your first launch right, famously it takes many attempts.
When both of these happened journalists seemed to revel in the failure. It was very odd to see.
I understand with these two examples a lot of it has to do with government/brexiteer chest thumping which shon a spotlight on them. However it was still odd to see.
I think this then trickles down to places like HN (who’s membership generally has a bias towards remain) who also see an opportunity to revel in it.
This is odd as well because I can see why Britons or Europeans would be passionate about membership in a regional trade bloc, Americans who get really passionate about it confuse me. As a Briton I didn’t really care when America left NAFTA.
This is assuming the majority of people on HN are American but based on time zones and when articles are posted I’m probably wrong.
Edit:
This is a UK based publication writing about Groceries in the UK which is why it’s so specific. Your comment just spurred something I’ve been thinking recently.
1. This will weaken the UKs ability to have private and secure communication services.
2. Will weaken the UKs tech industry.
3. The technology to provide the frankly bullshit notion of “privacy for the good guys” doesn’t exist and would be difficult to foster.
4. Education, “report don’t share” and tackling child abuse at its root (by not massively defunding the agencies responsible for tackling child abuse) are better solutions then setting up an apparatus of mass surveillance.
Hopefully these points will be brought up in the committee stage of the bill, I’m sure they will.
Edit:
Sorry this isn’t from the House of Lords this was from the joint committee before the bill was introduced to the lords.
Essentially you are allowed to use the rules of DnD (and other games that use the license) to make derivative work as long as its also published with OGL.
It allows homebrewed content to exist and is part of the reason the DnD community is so big.
WoTC (Wizards of the Coast, the owner of DnD) is “updating” the license from 1.0 to 1.1 and is using the update as an excuse to clamp down on competition and limit what can be used.
This has a far reaching effect because 1.0 would be revoked which means lots of content that has already been created would be put in a grey area, WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license.
It also puts entire games like Pathfinder into question as these are essentially modded DnD.
If I remember correctly the coup was rushed by its organisers because the authorities had caught wind of it and were beginning an investigation.
Generally coups take place in the middle of the night when everyone is asleep. This was during rush hour.
Usually coups involve taking over key administrative buildings as quickly as possible. They took over one of the busiest bridges in Istanbul.
The attempted coup also lacked the majority support of the military it requires to be successful.
97% of the Turkish Armed Forces ranking officers weren’t involved in the coup.
66% of the military's top leadership weren't involved in the coup.
They only had 35 jets and 37 helicopters.
During a coup the military should not be fighting itself whilst also attempting to take control. In this case the coups forces were smaller and worse equipped than the governments military.
With the precedent for coups in Turkey I don’t think there’s that much planning involved for the strengthening of control afterwards. Erdogan purged the army ruthlessly and declared a state of emergency, pretty par for the course after an attempted coup.
He definitely widened the net of his purge and take out some political enemies, but I don’t think Erdogan reacting fairly predictably to an attempted coup is proof that he knew of it before hand, or planned it.
I would argue that the although the military like to paint themselves as guardians of democracy they don’t exactly have a great track record.
The 1980 coup banned all political parties, all trade unions and the Kurdish language. They then “democratised” the country by only allowing parties that were junta approved, two of which were established directly by the junta themselves, to participate in elections.
This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people arrested, hundreds of thousands denied passports, tens of thousands killed either directly, in custody or through capital punishment.
Turkiye today does not have a “failed system” because there are no coups they have a system which is recovering from coups.
I’m not an Islamist, I don’t support Erdogan. A large number of Turks don’t.
But the paternalist idea that Turks are unable to govern themselves without violent takeovers and reprisals for the crime of voting for politicians they agree with is not good for the country and is not democratic.
Edit
“Dictatorship by majority” as you describe it is the definition of a democracy. The majority dictate the policy of the country. Unless my definition is wrong.
Edit 2
Claiming coups “were a feature of their democratic system” is an oxymoron and something I’m almost shocked to hear in a non satirical sense.
Until you can convince me that locusts are a feature for crops you won’t convince me that coups can be a feature of democracy.
Erdogan definitely took advantage of the aftermath of the coup to purge the military but the coup was not “made up”.
This was mostly a theory thrown around by western journalists who first tried to claim that a coup against Erdogan would be a good thing, a “liberal coup”. Followed by them pushing the idea it was fake.
I dislike Erdogan but hearing from my family’s experiences during the last coup in Turkiye I’ll take a democratically elected government I dislike over another military dictatorship.
I’m really disappointed in the media here in the west and the ideas they were pushing during that time.
Edit
Two extra points:
1. Turkiye has an extensive history of coups and general military intervention in politics which sets a precedent for this kind of coup attempt.
2. These sorts of claims are really akin to claiming 9/11 was an inside job. For some reason when it’s Turkiye being discussed what should be rightly identified as conspiracy theories become socially acceptable and viable in people’s minds.
While impressive I don’t think StarCraft and Diplomacy can be compared to an actual war.
Diplomacy especially has at most three actions that can be taken per turn (move, support, hold) maybe five if you include convoy and retreat. Generally each country does have pretty limited paths to win.
The impressive thing is the natural language processing of the AI and from what I read from one top diplomacy player the fact that the AI doesn’t try and take revenge when betrayed, doesn’t develop trust with any players or let any sort of subconscious feelings get in the way of its goal.
I don’t see a world where, as the article suggests, all war is automated.
I see a world where AI helps us be even more prepared for the last war, and equally unprepared for new wars.
For games that don't officially support Linux, Steam's Proton means most of mine bar two run perfectly on Fedora.
I haven't booted up Windows in months, a good outcome.