This. Ignoring the questionable source.

Other than denying Kerch bridge has anything to do with the UK. And they have provided 0 evidence to indicate it was.

Nothing they claim in any way disagrees with the UK open policy on Ukraine. Even if the UK blow Kerch bridge. It would be seen as supporting Ukraine’s own desire to keep their territory. Rather than anyway, proving that Ukraine would want to surrender without the UK “Plotting to keep them fighting”

Nothing here at all disagrees with the goals openly declared by the UK government. Under both current and previose leadership.

Only fails to make sense. If you failed to read any significant portion of the said wall of text.

It was a wall because It was detailed in the history of solar power. Ill ELI5 for you.

We have funded solar power for decades. By allowing the industry to charge equal to other fuels. Meaning, for 20 years or more, companies have been trying to build solar plants all over the nation. And those that got there made a fucking fortune. Until the Tories ended part of it nearly 14 years ago. They stopped the subsidies. But still paid the same rate as more expensive power.

The problem with building solar is the politics from farmers and local communities. As the text described.

So

Solving politics is cheap and fast.

Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.

Its not like you came up with a new idea.

Of building solar over nuclear. We have been trying for decades.

Wondering if anyone who knows the language/region.

Can confirm the terms they use. Because age of consent when its clear the child is not able to express a chioce or old enouth to understand what they would be agreeing to.

Seems like a western interpretation. Or are the laws there really that hypocritical in their terminology.

Get defs correct

Congress sent wespons to ukraine.

Trump broke the law and delayed the funding in an attempt to blackmail ukraine over US election properganda.

Yep.

Also while the UK governance structure is crap.

Other EU nations have some of the same issues. (As has briccs nations in the past)

This is more about corperation power. Capatalims control over government is everywhere. But fully embedded in the west.

‘Political malpractice’ sorta describes everything he does.

But, as statements go. It has the same value as suggesting he make his own orange die.

Solving politics is cheap and fast.

Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.

Its not like you came up with a new idea.

You can theoretically. Unfortunately, you are not considering the land difference.

More to the point, the absolute political nightmare of buying and getting permission to use so much land.

It is a nightmare for both. But rare to see the amount of land needed for the power station, have to argue about arable use. Whereas, it’s pretty hard in the UK to locate the solar without others claiming land is lost. Farm land mainly as that is the cheap build option. (pricy land, lower labour).

But even brownfield land. Once you have the area to host something like this. You are usually talking about close to populated areas. And just about every NIMBY crap excuse is thrown up about history or other potential use. Meaning, at best you end up with some huge project that takes decades. With a vague plan to add solar generation to the roof.

Honestly I agree. It should be fucking easy to build these plants. Farming should be updating. And honestly can benefit from well-designed solar if both parties are willing to invest and research.

But we have been seeing these arguments for the last 20 years. And people are arseholes, mostly.

And this is all before you consider the need for storage. Again solvable with hydro etc. Theoretically easy. But more land and way way more politics and time. If hydro the cost goes insane. And the type of land become more politically complex. If battery, you instantly get the comparison of mining and transport costs. So again more insane politics.

I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I def would rather not have more nukes about if it can be avoided.

Just maybe not stupid. When you consider Ukraine was pretty much the home of the USSRs weapons tech, People there developed most of the nukes and the MIG aircraft. That is likely why in part Russia want it. The expertise is still very much there as we saw with Ukraine MIGs compared to Russia. They have been upgrading since the 90s.

I’d guess if any nation was able to throw this together as a MAD Like defence in time for trumps potential withdrawal. It would be these guys.

Also given how close to Moscow, They are. The tech would really only need to be 1945 level for Russia to recognise the risk of continuing.

Given the 96 deal was, Russia gets it nukes back in exchange for respecting Ukraine’s borders.

Developing them may not be so stupid. Using them first, sure, stupid. As it is for any nation. But MAD was effective with Russia. While no nuke reprisal ability, clearly leads them not to give a shit about treaties they agrred to.

They said shell is guilty

Nope they said they had a responsibility. Not the same thing.

It basically translates to. Prior to this judgement no corperation could be held accountable for failing to meet climate targets. Now they can.

Yeah no disagreement.

My comment was more being practical. IE the real world we live in. If it was not for conflict ( first ww2 then cold war ). Rockets and space travel would never have seen the funding needed to develop. This goes on the pretty much everything - GPS, communications, weather n and on. All of it was funded mainly due to the military.

Without that it is hard if not impossible to imagine the wealthy considering the investment in tech worthwhile. And at the end of it. Real world the desire for the rich to protect or grow their position is the cause of all the above throughout history.

Honestly, I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s fucking depressing.

But without war. I doubt the world would have moved past feudalism. There just would not be the motivation to change.

Glad he found something to do with his little mushroom.

unfortunaty large parts of our “exploring the wonders of the universe” has been developed from “firing explody rockets at eachother.”

Yep. That is more about getting weight into space. As we know water can provide protection.

But the issue of moving water from earth to space then building a 2 layered craft strong enough to surrou d passengers with a foot or more of water. While doable theoretically. Is just a huge huge task.

If mankind is seriose about such. Robotic collection of ice from space is more practice. Moving it towards earth using it to create hydrogen and oxygen slowly via solar. Then using that to move the water itself into earth near orbit. From there building a vessel able to rotate and protect occupants from radiation etc would be possible.

But seriosly the amount of work involved. Mars really is not the best place to go. Once humanity has developed the ability to generate graverty. Confirmed mankind can live is centrifugal generated enviroments. And developed to robotics to move ice and asteroids into orbit.

Honestly building O’Neil station like structures would be healthier then trying to live in 1/3 g of Mars anyway. Mars is worth learning about. But musks population plan is not really the best way to make humanity less at risk of planetary loss.

Unless someone nasa/or musk, starts looking at the effects of centrifugal gravity on long term health.

Its just not going to happen. Atm anyone travelling to Mars is unlikely to be fit to explore by landing. Given the trip length.

But we have understood centrifugal artificial gravity since before space flight, and planned to experiment on iss.

But cheep politics has not bothered.

Can’t imagine them tasting very good.

I spose if you wrap um in bacon, pretty much anything taste good. But at some point. It’s just a waste of good bacon.

As likely as this is. (not that Oxfam is exactly the scientific research org I look to for evidence. I do not have any reason to doubt)

But it seems to me the top 1% is an easy target. When the huge commercial shipping to reduce labour costs and cheap plastic packaging etc used to handle it are equal if not a much larger overall cause of deaths.

Just a much harder oner to argue for the change of, even if public opinion can actually have more effect.

The top 1% have ignored public opinion since the invention of money. Commercial cooperation may try, but hiding or greenwashing is normally the closest they get.