RedFrank24 @ RedFrank24 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

201

Joined

9 mo. ago

Israel is unpopular, but Israel is not the end-all be-all of British politics.

According to YouGov (admittedly from 2024 but the Gaza War had already kicked off by then), the top 3 issues people vote on are...

For Labour Voters:

• Cost of Living
• Health
• The Economy

When asked what the single most important thing is, the most said Cost of Living

For Conservative Voters:

• Immigration
• The Economy
• Cost of Living

When asked what the most important thing is, the most said Immigration

For Reform Voters:

• Immigration
• Cost of Living
• The Economy

When asked what the most important thing is, the most said Immigration.

For the Lib Dems:

• Health
• Cost of Living
• The Economy

When asked what the most important thing is, the most said Health.

There's nothing on the Green Party because they're so irrelevant nobody even counts them.

Of the entire population surveyed, the total percentage of people that considered Gaza to be their highest priority was 2%, and of those 2%, the most were in the 18-24 age bracket at 14%.

Admittedly I may be reading that data wrong, and it is from 2024, but this is more current, and on that list, Israel vs Palestine isn't even counted because it's so low in priority. While yes, Israel is unpopular, in the grand scheme of things and the issues facing the UK right now, nobody gives a shit about Gaza.

Yes, there needs to be a more leftist party in UK politics, but... for christ's sake don't make Gaza your primary messaging. There's a ton of shit going on in the UK right now and Reform are ahead in the polls. Guess what Reform are not talking about? It's Gaza, because it turns out the average twat from the run-down northern town with no job prospects and a dying welfare state doesn't actually give a shit enough to want his government's priorities to be on another nation state when HE'S getting fucked from all sides.

Start your messaging about un-fucking the UK first, and then mention Gaza when asked. It's about being seen as "We're here for YOU" and then when asked about Gaza going "Oh yes we care about that as well, but YOU are the priority", hence the name Your Party.

In other words, a blog post.

I call them algorisms.

I'm happy to be lucky that my last two jobs have been either writing code for scientific charities or safety software. I'm fairly sure my code has never once harmed anyone, and may have even saved lives, maybe... Maybe it's not important enough to actively save a life, but it at least stopped people making stupid mistakes that could lead to people dying.

Maybe you could limit the number of verifications a key can have in a day? Limit it to say 10 verifications per day. So if you're on Pornhub and have an account, you can have the key associated with the account, verified, and so you don't need to re-verify. But if you go on 10 completely different sites and verify for each one, you can't verify after that 10th one within the same 24hr period?

You could maybe also include guidelines for integration where if a key is associated with an account, that key can't be used for any other account. You can include that under some requirement that says you have to make 'best efforts' to ensure that a key is only ever used by one account at a time. That way, if a million people are sharing the same key, you'd have to trust that all one million of them will never associate that key with their account because if they do, it invalidates that key for every use other than through that account on that site.

Yeah I did consider that people are going to share keys, but people are going to share accounts too so that's always going to happen. The best thing you can do is stick some safeguards on the keys where if a key is found online, it can be deactivated and potentially investigated since you can tell which shop sold the key. If there's a shop out there just giving cards away to minors, well they're in for a world of trouble.

Under the Licensing Act of 2003, it's illegal to sell alcohol to an adult if you reasonably suspect that they will be then giving that alcohol to a minor. You can assume the same will apply to people selling Wank Cards.

Hm, I'm going to need some software engineers to critique an idea I have that could at least partially solve the fears people have about their personal details being tied to their porn habits.

The system will be called the Adult Content Verification System (or Wank Card if you want to be funny). It's a physical card, printed by the government with a unique key printed on it. Those cards are then sold by any shop that has an alcohol license (premises or personal). You go in, show your ID to the clerk, buy the card. That card is proof that you're over 18, but it is not directly tied to you, you just have to be over 18 to buy it. The punishment for selling a Wank Card to someone under the age of 18 is the same as if you sold alcohol to someone under 18.

When you go to the porn site, they check if you're from the UK, they check if you have a key associated with your account. If not, they ask for one, you provide the key to the site, the site does an API call to https://wankcard.gov.uk/api/verify with the site's API key (freely generated, but you could even make the api public if you want) and the key on the card, gets a response saying "Yep! This is a valid key!" and hey presto, free to wank and nobody knows it's you! If you don't have an account, the verification would have to be tied to a cookie or something that disappears after a while for all you anonymous people.

As a result, you can both prove that you're over 18 (because you have the card) and some company over in San Francisco doesn't get your personal data, because you never actually record it anywhere. All you have is keys, and while yes, the government could record "Oh this key was used to verify on this site", they'd have to know which shop the key was bought from, who sold it, and who bought it, which is a lot more difficult to do unless the shopkeeper keeps records of everyone he's ever sold to.

So... Good idea? Bad idea? Better than the current approach anyway, I think.

Well then, time to start fining them under GDPR.

Just once I want to see Republicans help the poor out of sheer hatred. Like "I hate the poor so go damn much! I hate how they're always complaining about 'Wahhh my grandma is dying of canceerrrr' or 'Wahhhh I have to walk 20 miles to get to school because I can't afford a carrr!' . Infact I hate them so much that I'm going to educate them, I'm going to pay them more, I'm going to give them cheap public transport, and I'm going to ensure they're never poor again! That'll show the bastards!"

Just absolute venom towards those less fortunate, with a side-order of high quality public services and high living standards, as opposed to pretending to care about the poor and then never actually doing anything useful.

In the case of The Boys, the show is objectively better than the comic book.

Demons are meant to be tempting!

I feel like a sloth demon would take it a step further. You'd be enticed to napping, until one day you wake up from a nap, your face is wrinkled, every one of your friends has forgotten you, you're alone with only the sloth demon. Your life has been wasted away lying in bed.

Remember that time you said you were gonna travel? You were gonna go to Japan, you said. Too late now. You're too tired, you don't have any money. All you have is the Sloth Demon.

One day, your girlfriend calls you for your third nap of the day, and little do you know, you won't be awakening from that nap.

Your funeral has no attendees, at most you're a minor headline on a social media post about mental health. Your girlfriend? Gone, gone to find her next victim. Sloth Demons may not go through as many victims as their lustful cousins, but they get every last morsel out of them.

'Shut the fuck up!'

Could have just traded in the non-working Nubian ship and bought a junker. It'll get you to Coruscant just fine.

So if he was already so popular he was outshining Clinton and Trump, why didn't people vote for him? Could it maybe be because he's only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he's not as popular, and so nationwide polling isn't indicative of actual electoral success?

Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn't align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don't watch TV news anymore.

Did Bernie get more or fewer votes than Clinton?

Rigged how, exactly? Were all the voters that didn't vote for Bernie in on the conspiracy?

Bernie lost, he wasn't popular enough. Get over it.