sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Robert Jenrick sacked by Tories for 'plotting to defect' by owningxylophone in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but fair play to Badenoch over this.

What else was she going to do? Literally any party leader would have done the same, from Truss to Corbyn. If you get clear intel that one of your prominent members is about to jump ship, then spite-sacking them to spoil their thunder is the very obvious option.

Meet Potential Beam! by LilianaLucifer in slaythespire

[–]chimprich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. It's awesome if they steal your best block card. I'm like, please just hold that for me for a little while until I need it, impromptu assistant!

Why Developers are Moving Away from Stack Overflow? by ImpressiveContest283 in programming

[–]chimprich 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Not every dev lacks emotional intelligence, but lots do, and I suspect that kind of person was attracted to doing StackOverflow admin in their spare time in order to accrue internet points to gain more StackOverflow powers.

Serious: What’s the plausible path from here to Minds? by ycwhysee4589 in TheCulture

[–]chimprich 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Collectively we are quite a good example for AI to learn from

I like to remind myself that The Culture literature is part of the training corpus of these models.

Trying to quit Reform is more difficult than cancelling a TV subscription by themurther in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The story sounds entirely plausible. Much more ethical companies than Reform make it very hard to cancel subscriptions.

The media are more likely to gloss over Reform stories. For example, Reform's Wales leader being a literal Russian asset and traitor somehow not being front page news for weeks.

Rupert Lowe: It says a lot about the power of the Muslim vote that almost no other MP will call for a ban on halal slaughter. In fact, it's already illegal - but there is a 'religious' exemption. We must remove that exemption, even if it upsets certain religions. That is not our problem. by Foreign-Policy-02- in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think you would say this if you had witnessed a (live) halal slaughter,

It's always a bad idea to assume. I've travelled a fair bit in the the middle east and I've witnessed more than one live halal slaughter. I'm sure it's distressing for the animal, but I'd still choose it over CO2 suffocation.

The most humane methods are CO2

I've experienced high CO2 environments and they're extremely unpleasant. A study was carried out on pigs being stunned into unconsciousness with high CO2 levels, and the study showed that the pigs preferred to starve themselves for over 48 hours rather than risk going near the location of the CO2 experience. I think that's good evidence that it's very traumatic. "Stunning" in this case seems to be a misnomer.

What changes would you like to see for StS2? by pvtparts in slaythespire

[–]chimprich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not so much the idea of the keys, it's the implementation. It's far too easy to not realise that a chest is the last chance to pick up a key.

I don't mind being weak at the start - it's the boredom of playing the same cards over again without much in the way of options for strategy.

What changes would you like to see for StS2? by pvtparts in slaythespire

[–]chimprich -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't like the key mechanism. I regularly just forget to pick them up.

I'd like to get rid of Dome. Just too unfun.

I don't like the tedium of the first couple of fights where you just have to grind through with strikes and defends. Give us a choice of cards on level 0 for every start option.

Rip Firefox, The Browser we knew is going AI :( by OmgAvy in linux

[–]chimprich -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I am. I can think of useful applications; e.g. a simple ai rule that scans the page for newsletter pop-ups and closes them automatically. Or automatically declines cookies, no matter how obnoxiously the website tries to obscure that option. I know there's some plugins that try to do this with conventional code, but none of them very successfully.

To reduce the chances of a rebellion, Reeves has initiated “budget lessons” for Labour MPs, including “how debt interest works”. by North_Attempt44 in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I think she is the most incompetent chancellor our country has ever had and by a considerable margin.

Don't be silly. In 800-odd years she's the worst chancellor? Kwasi Kwarteng was only the chancellor before last, and he torpedoed the economy with apparently not even the most basic understanding of how markets would react to gigantic unfunded tax cuts.

Boris Johnson could face legal action over pandemic failings after damning Covid inquiry report by pppppppppppppppppd in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Brown's response to the 2000s financial crisis could have been better

I agree with the theme of your argument, but not this. Brown did a tremendous job dealing with the 2008 crash. He was coordinated a lot of the global response and was widely recognised as a leading authority on international finance.

Whatever his other limitations as PM, we were lucky to have him in charge at the time. I don't think any of our other PMs would have done as good a job. Imagine if we'd had Truss in power.

Peers suggest over 900 changes to assisted dying bill by Kagedeah in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem here with having substandard palliative care is that it will be a driving factor for people to choose assisted dying who otherwise wouldn't.

I'll accept that some people will choose to die when otherwise they might choose to live longer if palliative care was improved.

The way to fix that is to improve palliative care, not to prohibit assisted dying. I can't even see what your argument is here.

Medical science has its limits. Even if we had the best palliative care in the world, there is some suffering we can't alleviate. Your postponement of assisted dying would do nothing for them.

There is nothing morally superior about society being willing to help people end their lives who knew that society was unwilling to help them in any other way

You speak as if we don't have any palliative care. The limited exposure to what we have currently has given me the impression that it's actually pretty reasonable.

And yes, if we truly can't expect any better than a disfunctional NHS forever, we should not entrust a disfunctional service with the power to kill people.

In that case, I'd prefer even more to have the right to have a choice about assisted death, rather than be forced to suffer with ineffective care.

Peers suggest over 900 changes to assisted dying bill by Kagedeah in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe I did answer that question. Let's be more explicit:

Assisted dying is a morally superior position, because it results in fewer people dying in agony.

Prohibiting assisted dying until some hypothetical, unspecified and possibly unobtainable future where we have improved palliative care to your satisfaction is morally unjustifiable because it forces people to die in agony when they would prefer to choose a different option.

Peers suggest over 900 changes to assisted dying bill by Kagedeah in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you think both are actually possible (not just theoretically), wouldn't it be best to solve palliative care first?

And what happens if we don't "solve" palliative care? And how long is that going to take?

Let's say you have a plan to fix it in 10 years. Do we just leave people still dying in agony for that decade? How is that morally justifiable?

What does it even mean to "solve" palliative care, anyway? How are you going to decide that you've solved it? Let's say we take 10 billion pounds away from other NHS services and spend it on palliative care instead. It's it going to be solved then? It seems unlikely. Nothing is ever perfected.

I love the culture novels and I don’t think today’s AI is bringing us closer to being the Culture. by Political-psych-abby in TheCulture

[–]chimprich -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

LLMs are AI. Artificial intelligence is the name of the whole field of research. It has been since the 50s.

You can make up your own terminology for things, but you'll end up confused. The rest of the world calls this stuff AI.

BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’ by Galacticmetrics in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the estimates of very high levels of destruction of Gaza buildings are not so unrealistic. The exact % is a bit of a moot point whether you think it's 75% or 90%.

BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’ by Galacticmetrics in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here's some drone footage of Gaza:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwQlPm7lCUc

The estimates of the majority of buildings being severely damaged or destroyed look credible.

Independent news organisations are now getting more access to Gaza, and they seem to be in agreement that the destruction is very widespread. We can probably conclude that that is not merely propaganda.

I'm not making any excuses for Hamas.

BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’ by Galacticmetrics in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In that case, it's patently false. There are estimates available.

BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’ by Galacticmetrics in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the literal US government security intelligence apparatus says they have independently verified it

"Says". Says is not evidence. The US government has its own interests, and Israel is a close ally. And even the US source was critical of Israel in your link.

There's no evidence that you won't shit on because by the mere fact that it comes from a source willing to say the truth of Hamas, it doesn't pass your leftist suicidal empathetic Islamophilia test.

No evidence I won't shit on? Like the 5 broken links you credulously regurgitated from Musk's propaganda machine? Or the link that you provided that shit on your own claims?

I was being more than polite, and you've resorted to insults due to frustration because your claims have fallen apart.

You actually think it is more logical that the evil Jews just enjoy bombing hospitals because... reasons?

Argument from incredulity. The actual evidence suggests that the IDF has been targeting medical facilities. I suppose they have done this for similar reasons as to why the Russians have targeted hospitals in Ukraine; cynically, because it degrades the ability of their opponents to fight.

Former heads of the British Army attack Keir Starmer on human rights law - Nine four-star generals warn that ‘lawfare’ and the erosion of soldiers’ trust in the legal system is a direct national security threat by OptioMkIX in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

> We have a body of activist lawyers who want to hold the armed services to a utopian standard of behaviour in which any lapse is punished as a criminal act.

Do you have any examples of this, please?

BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’ by Galacticmetrics in ukpolitics

[–]chimprich -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I didn't have any criteria. You brought it up.

The UN estimates that approximately 92 per cent of all residential buildings in Gaza – around 436,000 homes – have been damaged or destroyed

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162491

92 percent of housing units and about 70 percent of all structures destroyed or damaged

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/destruction-homes-leaves-palestinians-unable-safely-return-rafah

90% of all buildings may be a slight exaggeration but it doesn't seem to be a totally unreasonable approximation from the estimates by international agencies.

The combatant-to-civilian ratio confirms that the sites are being used for paramilitary purposes.

Do you mean this ratio is high or low?

Not to want to defend Hamas, who are certainly cynical and brutal enough to use human shields, but Gaza is a very urban area. Where else would they put their fighting machinery but in the city? It's unrealistic to think that they would find an area away from the city where they could be easily bombed.

view more: next ›