JonnyExists

Is "terminally online" classified as a mental illness?

If not, why not?

It feels like a lot of people could be helped by a mandatory period away from the internet.

The boomers all left school at 14. Unfortunately there's not a lot that can be done about them until they're gone.

Ah, it *feels like* talking to a PhD level expert, which I guess is basically the same as a drunk trying to get you to go away and stop asking questions.

But like, the entire skillset of a PhD is being able to critically evaluate whether a piece of information is reliable or bullshit. That's the one thing LLMs are utterly incapable of and getting *worse* at as they continue to digest their own slop.

Alas not from the UK. Not a single vertebra amongst Starmer's faux-Labour.

Why would Scotland want to retain Stirling? By far the worst option available.

Get a job. Seriously. Get a proper job. Stacking shelves or something. Nobody should be paying you for this slop.

Whenever I see Sarah Silverman in anything I remember her as a guest character in that Star Trek: Voyager two-parter where they go to 1997.

You also have a very strange presidential election system. If you had a multi-stage one, else an STV system or similar - the idea being to choose a candidate that the majority can accept, as opposed to one that the highest significant minority champion - then you'd have different outcomes.

That's because you have both a two-party system and FPTP.

If you had a multi-party system with a multi-member constituency form of proportional representation, that kind of institutional capture of all major parties by moneyed interests becomes much, much more difficult.

I think some of that is the perception that racism is a type of rudeness - you can't be a racist if you don't say specific words (or at least not to their faces), but perfectly fine to have various beliefs about races.

Saying someone is a racist is telling them they're rude. They don't like it.

This exactly. I have been saying for years that candidates need to 1) be selected by their local parties, and 2) have lived in the constituency they want to represent (or within a few miles, to account for urban constituencies being tiny) for at least 5 years.

Rejoining the EU is necessary but not sufficient.

We had a lot of problems as a country before we left, and they've all got worse.

We must rejoin the EU as quickly as possible.

But we also need a massive suite of reforms to every aspect of our political and media environment.

Starmer says no.

The basic fact.

The UK is no longer in a stable position for as long as it ignores reality and chases unicorns.

Scotland and NI didn't want to leave in the first place, and as a result NI is more deeply connected to RoI by necessity and Scotland is in a uniquely bad position.

Ticking timebomb.

I see absolutely no reason to be hung up on something that will simply won't happen in any of our lifetimes regardless of what happens.

Given that, I imagine the EU would agree to a "no opt-out, but formally agree that Euro adoption can be subject to a referendum" position.

Nobody said overnight.

The fact remains the same regardless; unless the UK rejoins the EU, the UK will cease to exist.

The only question is whether Scotland or NI leaves first. One will inform the other, and Wales won't stick around to be England's property.

So put in the application now.

The Euro is, of course, not mandatory.

In fact is would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the UK to adopt the Euro even if it was trying to do so.

This exactly.

The only issue we have is that every newspaper in the country would scream that we'll be forced to adopt it on day one and fuckwits will believe it.

Which is why the lying media in this country needs their nuts ripping off in public.

As I said. In a few decades nobody will give a shit.

Sign the agreement, then put it off for a few decades.

We wouldn't be in a position to adopt the Euro in any of our lifetimes anyway.

Every other EU country mangaed it. Why do you think the UK is incapable of something Malta was able to do?

Isn't that only fair, then? Just like 2016, a simple yes/no question and then no further consultation while you ram as much additional stuff in as possible?

Most people in France, Germany, Italy and Spain would support UK rejoining EU, poll finds YouGov survey suggests majority support idea of Britain returning to bloc – but not on same terms it once enjoyed

www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Honestly, nobody under 40 uses physical currency any more. Doubt anyone at all will care in a few decades.

We'd simply join Sweden in having no opt-out and maybe having a referendum on the idea every few decades.

We wouldn't get an opt-out, but we also wouldn't have to adopt the Euro.

The agreement is to join at some point in the future when the conditions are right.

As well as "popular support" being a condition in itself, UK wasn't able to stay in the ERM, which is one of the conditions for € adoption.

Not exactly true though - the Leave vote was ~35% of the population. Nobody voted "don't know" in the referendum.

Assuming the "don't knows" also don't vote (or at least split 50/50) this would makes it about a 60/40 split to Remain. Up considerably.

No, the Single Market is right on our border. Hasn't gone anywhere.

All that's happened is that we have a series of governments more interested in selling as many of our assets to fascists in the States as quickly as possible than resecuring our economy.

A lot less safe than when they were in the single market, of course.

"Reduced tariffs" of a massive increase, but slightly less of a massive increase than they threatened.

Nah, fuck them off. Tax all their tech firms by fucking loads until they relent.