mindlesscrollyparrot

They specifically say that they do not know whether the bank concluded that the expenses were improper.

The implication of saying that you need the extra scrutiny is that either the Commons doesn't reflect the will of the people; or that the will of the people is not what ultimately makes law. If the people elect idiots and get bad legislation, that is democracy for you.

Of course, FPTP more-or-less guarantees that the government has a majority in Parliament without having a majority of the vote.

Defenders of FPTP often say that one advantage is that it means that the government has a clear majority. If that were such a good thing, why would we need a second chamber to balance it?

The Lords cannot ultimately block legislation. First Past the Post is a much bigger problem.

I cannot see how they could comply with both that and the GDPR, so the UK is asking Apple to choose between operating in the UK and operating in the 27 countries of the EU. Tough call.

He probably did it to troll people and spark outrage but that does not mean that he isn't also a Nazi / fascist.

However he is also banging on about inheritance tax, which has nothing to do with whether real farmers can make ends meet and everything to do with rich, tax-dodge farmers like himself.

I don't think that the safe harbour provision should apply when the person posting is the owner of the company.

Is one of those things giving attribution? If I ask for a picture of Mount Fuji in the style of a woodblock print, can the AI tell me what its inspirations were?

AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don't get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.

It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author's identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.

I am taking issue with your calling them "habitual losers" since it's demonstrably untrue. If you only look at the last election, you can't call it "habitual". If you widen the timescale, the worst possible is the last 3, in which they still won 1/3. In any other timescale, they were even or won more. Sure, there are other offices, but the presidency is quite a big one to overlook.

I said that you aren't ever going to understand what really happened if you start with a false premise, and you're obviously going to defend your false premise to the end, so I'm out.

Yes! Let's have some reflection and not pick the timescale to suit a narrative. The "habitual losers" won 3 of the last 5. Pelosi, Clinton, Biden etc. were all very present when Obama was in the Whitehouse.

I totally agree that it's ridiculous to lose to Trump, but you can't claim that they lost because their platform could never win, because it already has - including against Trump.

Why did they lose? I don't know - but I do know that you aren't going to find the answer if you start from a false premise.

I wasn't suggesting that they do. I was commenting on the fact that they don't even have the decency to pretend.