She wasn’t charged with a terrorist offence, though. She was held because the police thought that there might be a terrorist link.

You have read the word “terrorist” and assumed that what she did falls under that definition, which was the whole idea, of course.

So an EU-backed distro could be the same. Yes, they would fund maintainers, but their own maintainers, not maintainers of upstream distros.

How much of Ubuntu’s funding goes to supporting debian? I actually don’t know.

I don’t, for example, see Ubuntu listed here: https://www.debian.org/partners/

Well, what better way to embrace FOSS than dismissing the efforts of all the existing distro maintainers? Welcome to the community, guys. Good luck building your cathedral next to the bazaar!

How about they instead work together with the distros and create a way of certifying a distro as gov-ready?

PieDock

He isn’t scared of being stabbed. He just doesn’t want to go to Clacton.

I mean, it did happen under a Conservative government, and Sunak defended his failure to declare an interest by saying that he wasn’t privy to his wife’s business interests.

It’s quite possible that it’s that very scandal that prompted Starmer to seek additional guidance.

AI developers: your copyrighted work is such a small contributor to the AI’s output that copyright doesn’t apply. Also AI developers: but our AI won’t work without it.

If organizing multiple riots across the country doesn’t count as domestic extremism, what does?

It should be the case that we do our part and take in as many refugees as France.

It should be the case that we honour our debts and take in the people that risked their lives to help our troops in Afghanistan.

It should be the case that people stop listening to grifters peddling lies on the internet.

How is their claim not valid if the Home Office allowed it? You think Priti Patel was like “oh, go on then, I’ll turn a blind eye just this once” ?

It isn’t the case that they have to claim in the first country they come to. That’s just misinformation.

If they spoke French, they would probably claim there. France takes more asylum seekers than the UK, so why would they risk their lives? We didn’t even take our interpreters from Afghanistan.

You’d think that Nigel Farage would be as informed as anybody on these topics and he’s getting his information from Andrew Tate. I repeat: they do not have valid concerns; they are just racists rioting.

Because they have valid claims - 67% of claims in 2023 were successful.

They are not criminals. People who smash gravestones to throw them at policemen, though, they are criminals. We should put them in a prison barge.

You’re quoting the statistic about how many people were stopped on landing or shortly afterwards to tell me how they’re arriving “unchecked”.

Theresa May introduced the Hostile Environment, and Priti Patel made it even more strict. If the Home Office could refuse asylum applications for any reason whatsoever, they would. Despite that, the vast majority of asylum applications are successful.

So they are not cheating the system and they do have the right to be here.

Besides which, how many people do you think we’re talking about? Small boats. The clue is in the name. It’s not like Dunkirk out there.

You think that the small boats are unchecked? That they are not intercepted and the people detained?

In any case, that is only illegal because the last government made it so that you cannot claim asylum upon landing. They are not criminals in any other sense.

Criminals are not being let into the country unchecked. That is not a valid concern.

A valid concern would be that foreign actors are feeding false information to the British public to destabilize the country.

Inciting religious hatred is what it is. That is a crime and it warrants prosecution, not criticism.

Is he following science? Recommendation 6 of the report recommends more research. Which recommendation says that they should be banned in the meantime?

Recommendation 10 says “All children should be offered fertility counselling and preservation prior to going onto a medical pathway.”, which implies that there is a medical pathway.

The report advocates all kinds of caution. It doesn’t appear to go where the Atkins and Streeting, who are politicians, not scientists, have taken it.

If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.

The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.

Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.

I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?