lil_cain

I'm not saying it's impossible; Trainspotting, for example, is mostly written in phonetic Scottish english. Many english speakers find it difficult to read though, for precisely that reason…

The lack of exact correspondence between spelling and pronunciation is a feature, not a bug.

If we want an EU army, we need a single EU foreign policy first. Otherwise who decides when to use it?

And if we have a single EU foreign policy, how do we deal with NATO? Do state that are non-aligned just have to suck it up? How do we deal with France's military adventures in Africa? Do the countries that object to them have to suck it up and Françafrique quickly collapse? What's the EU position on the Carlingford Lough Dispute? Is Imia in Greece, or not?

> Then maybe some EU equivalent of the FBI (no Interpol doesn't cut it, something with trained men with guns and bugs and all, and EU only).

This bit is ongoing; The European Public Prosecutor is the first step in this, and frontex are already armed. Note that despite the EU having armed forces, the oversight mechanisms for them are, so far, atrocious. Perhaps we should fix those before expanding to an army?

> Even a possible future improvement of the relationships between Europe and Russia is contingent on this: we need to be able to talk with Russia without the US sitting at the table, and to have the option to also act against the interests of the US. Which, frankly, don't really coincide that much with that of Europe anymore.

Do you have a course of action that you think we should be pursuing that we cannot currently? I can't think of one, but it may exist. And if you do, is it one that would command support in all EU states, or is the first step getting foreign policy to move to QMV? And if that's the case, how do you plan to win a referendum in Ireland to (effectively) abolish Irish neutrality?

Of course, it might not happen, but odds are rather better, in both cases, than they were pre Brexit.

Ninja Edit: This isn't to try and minimise the importance of Wales, just a recognition that at the time of the creation of the UK, the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica entry (For Wales, see England) wouldn't have been controversial in most of the UK. But even in Wales, Plaid have done very well, and become much more radical, as a result of Brexit.

Firstly they didn't get free trade - there are tariffs, rules of origin, and a lack of equivalence for SPS & product safety rules. The last one is especially egregious currently, because the UK still has exactly the same agricultural rules it did when it was a member.

Secondly, there is now a customs border in the UK. That's a fairly gigantic offensive ask for the E.U., which they largely succeeded in.

Thirdly, the UK got significantly less freedom on state aid than it wanted (which is of course, not surprising, given that the freedom they wanted was "We do whatever we want").

They got control over immigration. Of course, as a consequence of this, so did we, and if you read the UK press, they're currently finding out that that's a thing that cuts both ways (and they're not massively happy about this).

This is the wrong way of thinking about things. Yes, other countries manage to be outside the EU, and do fine (albeit, at least in Europe, most of those doing fine have close links to the EU). But, those countries don't start from a position of being tightly integrated into the European economic system.

The idea is that the good is the lowest quality way of fulfilling some need - so people buy it because they can't afford anything else.

None of those things make up for the giant differential in income, and predictability of hours though. And McDonalds does lack the occasional super interesting problem you get in IT - but day to day the actual job wasn't a lot worse.

Actually, socialism is the ownership by the workers of the means of production.

A system of co-operatives would also be socialist.

Both of these assumptions are likely untrue. Poverty makes the cost of many things higher. Banking is non-trivially more expensive. Public transport often ends up more than the cost of a car, and that's assuming you can afford a season ticket. Those in poverty often cannot. Rental is over a lifetime normally more expensive than buying - and if you're in poverty, you can often expect rental to include large deposits which you often won't get back.

For the impulsive thing, see http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001209.... Essentially if you're poor, there's a good chance that your marginal utility curve is upward, rather than downward sloping. Which rewards impulsive behavior in a way that is not the case for those who meet the normal standard of living in their society.

(Discussion of the actual flaws)

Note the long list of mitigations. Some things will be remotely exploitable (exim), but it looks like most things will be safe enough, as it doesn't affect cases where forward confirmed reverse DNS. Even the exploit they give only works against particular exim configs.

That said, this has a picture, and a name. So it's obviously the biggest deal ever.

Also, not this was leaked before the end of the embargo.

Bitcoin is not legal tender anywhere in the world.

(Or the US does thing entirely differently - I only work in the UK business unit, so you never know)