LOL the failure isn’t mine

I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.

Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody “saying one thing and doing another”. The critical part is that with “the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything” you’re presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.

My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.

I know what she said

I’m confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?

This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass

“to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests.”

From what I can tell, this isn’t about creating a registry of trans people, this is about collecting “sex at birth” alongside other data for any “identity verification requests” which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.

• The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
• The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
• Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.

I don’t understand how you went from this stuff you’ve linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?

I’d say they’re not really:

In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma. Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.

– https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

Their reform came in the face of the extraordinary failure of the previous approach, to the degree that it had an actual impact on the ability of their society to function. They still punish drug users, they just do it differently.

They still see all drug use and getting out of your head as something bad, to be controlled and preferably eradicted, instead of seeing drug use as something which is any responsible adult’s basic human right.

The list of freedoms we enjoy today that were not enjoyed by our ancestors is indeed a long and impressive one. It is therefore exceedingly strange that Western civilization in the twenty-first century enjoys no real freedom of consciousness.

There can be no more intimate and elemental part of the individual than his or her own consciousness. At the deepest level, our consciousness is what we are—to the extent that if we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we cannot in any meaningful sense be sovereign over anything else either. So it has to be highly significant that, far from encouraging freedom of consciousness, our societies in fact violently deny our right to sovereignty in this intensely personal area, and have effectively outlawed all states of consciousness other than those on a very narrowly defined and officially approved list.

– https://grahamhancock.com/the-war-on-consciousness-hancock/

Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?

I’m confused. Isn’t syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I’m glad to hear that.

And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)

nonpeople

O_o

meme is geared towards the aforementioned 10-15% of users of any substance

I’d say that’s arguable but even so, your statement wasn’t geared that way. You said “users” without qualification, not “problematic users”. I’m simply pointing out that there’s a distinction between the two and one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by assuming that all drug users are problematic drug users and then creating laws based on that very flawed assumption.

drug dealers are parasitical entities which are committing acts akin to murder or genocide

Some are. Some are decent and are helping people out because the government has chosen to put the multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminal gangs (the parasitical entities). Again, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. When society eventually pulls its head out of its ass and legalises and regulates drugs, I’ll bet a large proportion of the people staffing the specialist pharmacies will be those same drug dealers doing what they always did, just in a legalised context: not only supplying but offering advice and guidance to keep people safe.

it’s hard to argue that we’re being punitive by not dedicating a safe space wherein to do drugs

I would argue that this is very much in line with the punitive approach of criminalisation, it comes from the same feelings of revulsion and delusions of moral superiority as criminalisation. It’s simply another form of punishment: unnecessary, forced suffering.

what seems right

A punitive approach to drugs only seems right to the wilfully ignorant. Religion seems to overwhelmingly be the source of that will.

UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. That means 85-90% of users are in no need of treatment.

The government doesn’t promote smoking by creating rules to mitigate the dangers and provide a safer experience for those who choose to take the risk. Same with riding motorcycles. Or gambling. Or pretty much everything which responsible adults want to do that carries risk except, for some reason, drug use. Instead of being rational and mitigating the risks of drug use, the government chooses to put the drug market into the hands of criminals making the whole situation much more dangerous than it needs to be and also gifting a multi-billion dollar industry to criminal gangs.

deleted by creator

4K/UHD discs need to phone home in order to get decryption keys on a per disc basis

Is that true for hardware players? I’ve only seen people talking about software players like Power DVD having to get keys from the Internet.

4k players

Are you talking about software players or 4k decks?

there is simply too much at stake

OUR MONAYS!1!!!

They are both perfectly fine editors but they don’t hold a candle to a proper IDE

I’m not sure what you mean by “proper” in this context. Every IDE I’ve ever used has seemed like a child’s toy compared to Emacs. An annoying child’s toy with cracks and sharp edges.

I also want to play some games that go beyond the production values of SuperTuxKart and Battle for Wesnoth.

Try 0 A.D. or FreeOrion.