There's another article here (written in a less confusing first person; I vaguely suspect that the third-person article linked above is intended for newswire or something): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/why-the-guardi... which goes a bit into it.
tl;dr - Twitter is bad, and also not as important as it used to be. The Guardian does not want to and is not financially forced into producing clickbait for social media.
(The Guardian is owned by a weird non-profit, the Scott Trust (which is, confusingly, no longer a trust); it's allowed the odd principled decision, as a treat.)
I for one appreciate modern medicine and the internet. I also practice hand tool woodworking as a hobby, and while it scratches an itch to be more physical and present I’m in no way a Luddite.
I would much rather have extreme physical exertion be an optional thing that I do to make myself feel good than a thing that must be done else my family and I starve. Let's not lose sight of the fact that being able to take "past good stuff" comes with the incredible luxury of leaving a lot of past bad stuff in the past.
I've fainted a few times and that reboot experience was the same. It felt like the RoboCop boot sequence, you get sound and then vision that slowly returns.
Most regions have prescribed safety standards to meet, for instance the kitemark or the CE mark
(http://www.safekids.co.uk/toysafetymarks.html)[http://www.sa... show an item meets the regulatory safety requirements - these aren't added by stores, they are obtained by the manufacturer so that its products can be sold in stores across Britain and Europe.
Saying that the onus should be on stores is crazy, unless you accept that a company should have exclusive rights to your product at which point it become a licensed product and would probably be branded as such.
Perhaps - assuming they could get one in the first place. Alternatively the application process could have simply accelerated their deportation. Things might have gone better under the Blair government, but the whole point of ID cards is to impose the state's view on everyone's status.
Indeed it would have. I think the worst kinds of surveillance mechanisms are the ones that can cause a lot of suspicion and false positives, but don't allow those affected to refute any allegations. Identity documents are not like that at all. On the contrary.
Unlikely. Remember that the House Intelligence Committee has a full set of Top-Secret clearances, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee.
They're not allowed to tell us any top-secret information, but you can usually tell if something is getting hidden from the public based on their reactions. If something is getting hidden, expect Ron Wyden (or other Democrats on those Committees) to make a big, vague, stink about the matter.
In effect, the existence of those top-secret committees ensures that the redactions are fair. Unlike most committees, the law states that Democrats AND Republicans must be as close to 50/50 split on those committees as possible, due to their great importance in matters such as these.
Security clearance has no impact on most of the reasons things are redacted in this, which are not classification. There will be apparently a version with fewer (but not no) redactions shared with a limited number of members of Congress, but there's been no indication that it would be members of the intelligence committees. (I'd expected members—or maybe just leadership from both parties—of the Judiciary Committee.)
> In effect, the existence of those top-secret committees ensures that the redactions are fair.
No, it doesn't in general, and it most obviously doesn't on matters like the Mueller Report where redactions aren't even notionally due to classification and where those conmittees don't get the unredacted versions.
Hmmm... you bring up some strong points. I'll have to do research later and confirm / reconfirm my armchair lawyer powers.
But for now, I should note that Volume II of the report has very, very few redactions.
This is important because Volume I seems to implicitly exonerate Trump (at least, Muller doesn't seem to think there's anything here).
Volume II however, Obstruction of Justice, seems to be the issue that Congress should look into. Since Volume II (Obstruction of Justice) is mostly available to the public / non-secret, I'm feeling pretty confident that Congress has what it needs to act (or decide to not act). There are a few "HOM" (harm to ongoing matter) redactions, but the evidence is laid out pretty cleanly.
I guess we'll worry about that when we get there. There are plenty of real problems in the US system of law that we really shouldn't be trying to fix hypothetical problems that don't exist yet.
I've been to a few pick your own farms in Staffordshire, but these have been secondary businesses to farm shops or petting zoos.
I think strawberry farms have got technology down to a point where having people (especially children) ambling around is invasive. I see a lot of polysterene covered tunnels in fields which I've seen strawberries grown in. As we rely more on technology, the more it distances us from the process.
