Juan Pablo De Wes

The financials are in worse shape than they might be because Elon “owned the libs” who are Tesla’s primary market in many countries…:

Why is Elon central now?

Tesla is an established company.

The product range is established.

He’s spread very thin, clearly hasn’t been focused on Tesla and the company has still functioned.

It would do better without him

Counter factual.

How has Apple done after Steve Jobs left?

Also, as I understand it facial age verification uses AI to estimate someone’s age from a picture/scan, with the picture/scan deleted immediately afterwards.

So what is the significant security risk associated with this approach?

I use Face ID to log into my phone, access passwords, banking apps etc. multiple times each day. This is incredibly common. It is not something most people consider a security risk.

Given its wide usage why does using Face ID, to age verify, create significant additional security risk?

I did

You claimed there is an unacceptable level of risk related to people uploading information that most people upload very regularly.

You also made the point that you personally do not upload information that most people upload very regularly.

…. again something the majority do regularly without batting an eyelid.

A very large % willing uploaded their face to social media sites, dating sites, blogging sites etc.

You personally may not have, but that’s not really a counter to the point that most do regularly upload their details to access services online.

Also you can use a credit card…

So to summarise.

Keir Starmer said Israel had a right to respond to Oct 7th but they should stay within international law.

Israel then broke international law multiple times.

You think that somehow makes Keir Starmer complicit…. I don’t.

That a fair summary?

He clearly said Israel should abide by International Law

Genocide isn’t permitted by International Law

Not bad faith at all.

It’s a simple question, which you don’t want to answer

“Obviously, everything should be done within international law,"

he added.

Ok mate.

But let’s be clear, whether you have actually broken international law does depend on whether you have actually broken international law…. doesn’t it?

When the conversation is about whether someone has broken international law, whether they have actually broken the law or not is very very important isn’t it?

You stupid cunt

He didn’t explicitly say that.

He said they had a right respond, which they did.

He said they should stay within international late, which they should have and clearly haven’t.

In this thread alone you’ve constantly replied to what you’d like me to have said, rather than what I actually said.

You’re doing the same with Keir Starmer.

Do you agree that Starmer clearly said Israel should follow International law?

To clarify.

Keir Starmer very clearly says in this interview that:

“Israel must act within international law”

Also, your whole argument seems to be based on an interview with Nick Ferrari where Starmer clearly said:

“Israel must act within international law”.

Bad faith crank arguing.

Neither am I.

I’m pointing that the statement doesn’t make him complicit.

It’s a completely different point I’m making, but you keep going back to the point I’m not making.

Because what you really want to do is attack Labour and Gazans are the vehicle for you to do that.

Except there’s no apology from me, just a comment that it doesn’t make complicit.

You just want to slag off Labour and this is your current vehicle to do it.

You’ll find others.

Your fake concern for the people of Gaza shines through loud and clear.

Not sure of relevance to the point I was making?

If you want a non WWII related example of changing alignment.

Ukraine and Russia were friends until Yanukovych lost the 2014 election.

The only point that I was making was who is a friend, and who is an enemy, is not set in stone

No we don’t disagree, but we’re not talking about the action itself.

We’re talking about what someone is isn’t an active participant said abou the action.

And saying things doesn’t make you complicit to anywhere near the extent you seem to think it does

No really responding to what I actually said eh?

If you think that statement means that Starmer is complicit under article 3 than, I repeat, you’re a moron

So Ukraine then?

U.K. government is not complicit in genocide.

Only cranks and weirdo’s claim that.

If you think Keir Starmer, or any other European leader is going to tried under the Genocide Convention you’re an absolute moron.

I was talking about the Israeli government.

You know, the ones actually doing the genocide.

Ok, and should the U.K. also intervene militarily in China and in Ukraine too?

Of course it’s a genocide.

It’s not too late to stop things getting worse, though the power the U.K. on its own to do that is extremely limited.

Punishment will come, but unfortunately it’s likely a long slow path