w14

> I belive that US tech firms have increasingly become valid military targets.

Not just US tech firms. So-called dual-use has been embedded into all kinds of what was previously exclusively civilian infrastructure including telecoms networks and data centres.

Of course dual-use has always been a thing up to a point, but there has been a shift in recent years to bring it right to the heart of military doctrine.

For example the UK's Strategic Defence Review 2025 and the new Defence Industrial Strategy:

"A new £11bn ‘Invest’ annual budget has also been established under the NAD. This will fund kit for our front-line forces which is affordable and grows our UK industrial base. Our new partnership with industry and a decade of consistently rising defence spending will encourage more private finance to grow our world-leading scale-up and dual-use tech companies."

"Today, much of the best innovation is found in the private sector, while the increasing prevalence of dual-use technologies has widened the net of potential suppliers that can contribute to Defence outcomes."

The way things are going it won't just be tech firms that will be considered 'legitimate targets'.

You don't need to do this for your blog. Comments on "provider content" are out of scope. [1] This was done mainly to protect legacy press and media comments sections but it applies equally to a blog comments section.

[1] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/55

They haven't actually built one yet. They have been selected as the preferred bidder here in the UK, but that's as far as it has got so far.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/press/rolls-royce-smr-will-b...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rolls-royce-smr-selected-...

Don't know that this is any better, but here's the gov.uk version:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/us-uk-pact-will-boost-adv...

and the follow up press release from Thursday:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-breaking-150bn-inv...

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed.

From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software."

This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content.

Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance".

Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later.

So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it.

The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties.

Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.

I agree with this article that it's probably fake news [0]. It's also mostly moot now anyway, since if TV service is provided via Sky or Virgin, you're bang to rights. Same if you use BBC iPlayer, which is very good at detecting VPN use and so its very hard to hide your real IP address.

[0] - https://www.agetimes.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/tv-detector...

Indeed, but of equal stature in my opinion is that they people on the receiving end of the miscarriage of justice are continuing to be abused by the so-called compensation process.

During the inquiry, the statement was made, can't remember by whom, that value for taxpayer money had to be respected.

I think its past that point, and I would like to know why the instigators of the miscarriage aren't at risk of losing their personal assets to (at least partly) cover the cost. Maybe we have to wait for the inquiry report for that, but in the meantime it is pretty clear that 'value for taxpayer money' means, at least to some degree, kicking the can down the road until as many of the claimants are dead as possible.

The UK Gov proscribed 'Terrorgram' in April this year. [0]

The first discussion I have found of it is Hope Not Hate's "State of Hate 2020" report. It hasn't been mentioned in the more recent reports. [1]

[0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/terrorgram-collective-now...

[1] - https://hopenothate.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/state-...

This does not seem to be borne out by the accident statistics, which apparently show no trend in turbulence related accidents. (https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101....)

I don't know if there are other factors which might be masking a rise in incidence of CAT from accident stats?

- Ofcom sets out more than 40 practical steps that services must take to keep children safer - Sites and apps must introduce robust age-checks to prevent children seeing harmful content such as suicide, self-harm and pornography - Harmful material must be filtered out or downranked in recommended content

Unfortunately here in the UK, Ofcom doesn't agree:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/tech-firms-must-ta...

"Sites and apps must introduce robust age-checks to prevent children seeing harmful content such as suicide, self-harm and pornography"

Possibly because they have moved the front camera and the charging no longer works with the old pen.

Credence "logs every keystroke on Horizon". [0]

[0] - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/miscarriages-justice-nick-wal...

We install an ad blocker.

My question is why have they singled out Tiktok? This seems political to me.

Last year Ofcom published a report on childrens' use of social media. It found:

"For children aged 8-12 who used social media the proportions with their own profile were; eight in ten (79%) among Snapchat users, 72% for Facebook, around two-thirds on each of the other platforms (i.e. TikTok, Instagram, Twitter), except YouTube at 43%."

- https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/245004/...

Don't forget that even if inflation comes back to 2%, that's still only a rate of change. Prices continue to rise, just more slowly.

The prices that we have today, that so many already can't afford, aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

One area that I think is interesting to look at, aside from overall budget, is bed capacity and nursing staff numbers.

According to Statista:

Bed capacity is significantly lower than at the turn of the century, but more damage was done there by Labour than the Tories [1].

The numbers of nurses has steadily increased in the last twenty years under both Labour and the Tories [2].

So if there are many more nurses per bed than there were twenty years ago, why is patient safety one of the issues they are currently in dispute with the government over?

I don't know the answer to this, but I think we need to know. It is, like teachers, that nurses are spending so much time on non-clinical bureaucracy that the don't have time to nurse?

[1] - https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4302/M6SgVh.png

[2] - https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7041/40e6JF.png

It's certainly viewed as immoral at the very least in the UK.

"In R v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 29, the House of Lords held that although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where an accused can show entrapment, the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of the court's process or it may exclude evidence pursuant to Section 78 PACE 1984 ...

"Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances would be an affront to the public conscience."

- https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process

Indeed - it was set up long before Ukraine or Liz Truss. But aside from bad long term energy policy, the incompetence of Andrew Bailey can't be ignored in my view.

In July 2021, Andrew Bailey said "Our forecast at the moment is that we do expect inflation to pick up in the next month or so really ... At the moment we don’t see that evidence [of long term inflation] but we will watch it, of course we must do, very carefully."

So he took no action.

By October 2021 his colleague Hugh Pill said "The magnitude and duration of the UK's inflation spike is proving greater than expected …"

And yet they continued to do nothing. They continued to claim inflation would rise to a few percent and then drop back.

It may be reasonable to say that they couldn't foresee Ukraine, but the inflationary pressure was already there, as you say partly because of Covid bailout money printing, but also from the supply side because of China's zero Covid policy, which was already recognised by many, but not by the Bank of England apparently, as being a fairly major contributor of inflationary pressure [1].

[1] - https://www.asiapacific.ca/publication/china-has-hit-inflect...

> That conspiracy is as old as the Titanic.

Indeed. My Uncle was involved with the installation of Samson and Goliath [0], the two yellow cranes at Harland and Wolff. Goliath was installed in 1969, and the story of the ships being swapped was told to him then.

The story told to him was that Morgan had ships ready to sail to the rescue from New York, but they ended up fog bound and delayed.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes)

> There is no point to them.

What about this?

"Under the provisions of the Investigatory Powers (IP) Act, it is now possible for the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) community to lawfully obtain Internet Connection Records (ICR) in support of their investigations. Following the completion of some initial trial activities, work is now underway to provision a national ICR service."

https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/digital-outcom...

> If a significant fraction of landlords have financing costs that greatly exceed rental income, that is their problem. They can't just pass that cost on to renters because they feel like it.

Purely anecdotally, a large proportion of the housing available for sale in Plymouth (UK) seems to be rental property. Tenants are being thrown out while landlords sell up.

I have been wondering if the drive to cash out at a time when holding cash isn't necessarily such a great idea is exactly what you suggest - that those with buy-to-let mortgages are looking at the potential of interest rates rising faster than rents.

I think the issue here is that they appear to misrepresent the sitution on their pricing page [0].

For example the Premium tier which is required for live streaming is £70 per month, billed annually.

For that they claim "Unlimited live streaming".

If you click on "View all features" to see the hidden detail, you can read:

"Unlimited bandwidth (subject to fair use)" and if you then hover over the question mark, you can see more hidden text describing the 99 percentile blurb.

Nowhere do they state any numbers defining what overuse is.

So people are sucked into what appears on the surface to be a great service, at a great price relative to the competition (DaCast etc), and as soon as Vimeo has you dependent on their service, the "you're in the top 1%" email comes.

I don't think this is a great business model. They should be upfront and honest from the get go.

[0] - https://vimeo.com/upgrade

The UK is leading the charge for legislation [0] to force platforms to impose certain types of censorship. Youtube and the others are just getting ahead of curve. They have known what's coming since they were invited into No. 10 to discuss these issues with Theresa May and Amber Rudd in 2017.

The legislation is based on the principle that everyone has the right to say what they want to say, but they have no right to be heard by others. This phraseology was used by several during the recent committee hearings, including by Facebook employees for example. So it will effectively enshrine in law: shadow banning, delisting from Google search etc.

Also enshrined in the legislation is the principle of banning content which is 'legal but harmful to adults'. 'Harmful', amongst many other terms, is not defined.

Also enshrined in law will be the principle that certain types of 'journalistic' content will be protected from this censorship if it meets criteria to be decided upon by the new regulator, Ofcom.

This will be an enabling act. It is full, from front to back, of opportunity for scope creep through secondary legislation.

As I said, the UK is leading the charge with this, but the EU has been keeping pace [1]. I haven't seen similar in the US as of yet.

[0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... [1] - https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe...

> Go look for the words cryptocurrency or blockchain in it.

Look at the BIS's annual economic report for this year [0]. They are absolutely talking about retail tokens based on a distributed ledger as one of two retail options, the other being as you describe.

[0] https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2021e3.htm

The City also has a 'remembrancer' [0], effecively a lobbyist who represents the City's interests to Parliament.

[0] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/about-the-city-of-l...

One way to look at it is that "elsewhere" is a protest pen, just like in the physical world where there is a plan to host this year's G7 protests in Plymouth, 76 miles away from the G7 venue [1].

[1] https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/mp-fears...

Accessing the site with javascript switched off seems to defeat this.

Each container can be colour coded (up to 8 colours) and each tab is underscored with the same colour, so you can immediately see which is which.

If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged?

In this case the fact the tweet was taken down made headlines, but if censorship like this is becoming the norm, as it looks like it is, then these issues potentially get no exposure or discussion.

That seems more dangerous to me.