ThenThreeMore

The defendant saying that they did it doesn’t mean that they did. That could be helping the real guilty party get off.

Definitely not. There are the obvious issues with miscarriages of justice but also I think that an eye for an eye justice is archaic.

Then reinstated quietly after the election (if Tories win)

No it doesn’t seem to be in there. According to the highway code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.

Or is there some case law maybe that you’re referring to?

Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be “you must not park on the pavement” or if there’s some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "

Might be worth letting the uni know. Surely they’ll want to fix the site!

The Tories haven’t recovered in the polls since partygate and Truss, something has finally stuck.

If we banned private healthcare the rich would have an incentive to make socialised healthcare better.

Water is wet, says thinktank.

Yeah which is why the NHS was better under labour, because it was constantly more than 4% above inflation.

A big part of the killer though is the second part. Yeah the overall budget was (barely) above inflation, but the wage cap was often below inflation. During the time Labour were in power the amount of nurses went up by around 80,000. Since the Tories took power over 200,000 have quit. We can only imagine how many fewer would have left if it weren’t for the 1% pay cap and Brexit.

The public discourse around the NHS would lead you to think that NHS spending had been squeezed over the last 14 years - but it hasn’t.

NHS budget has actually consistently grown faster than inflation under a decade and a half of Tory health secretaries.

It has been squeezed though.

Under labour the NHS consistently received funding around 4% above inflation, under the Tories it was barely clearing 1% most years Fig 1

There’s also the other side of it, the NHS was not exempt from the 1% pay cap.

Should always go up above inflation to retain and attract staff as well as morally to improve people’s standards of living (and economically to grow tax receipts and grow the economy)

The two things together it becomes clear how the crisis started. Now add to that Brexit and a large reduction of the labour pool, other countries attracting staff with generous packages.

Or the access to a GP. Under the last labour government you could get a GP appointment in 48 hours. So if you had something you were concerned about you could get it checked out. Now it’s so hard to see anyone you just give up then if it is something it’ll get to the point where you’re actually ill.

Welcome to election year.

I can only help with the last part as I use audible. Have you tried Voice? https://droidify.eu.org/app/?id=de.ph1b.audiobook&repo_address=https://f-droid.org/repo

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.ph1b.audiobook

Those who believe The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

Another Brexit Benefit

Fuck Nigel Frog face Farrage, The Haunted Victorian Pencil Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lord David Pig Fucker Cameron, Maybot, Boris I don’t care where I stick my Johnson, and all the rest of the Tories who either actively supported this or were to self interested to not rebel as their leaders doubled down on their Brexit folly again and again.

Excuses excuses.

The links to Wikipedia are actual citations to real sources

I read an interesting article a few years ago about the Wikipedia source problem. It did a dive into how sources that seem legitimate on Wikipedia can and up citing sources that are less so. They were able to trace back the citations to Wikipedia itself. So no, they’re not always real sources.

LLMs basically just generate something that looks like the link to a credible source which might support what it’s said. It doesn’t care if its “source” actually supports what it says.

Which is why you read the page it has linked for you as a source. Unless you’re trying to say it full on generates a page for you.

What I mean is I use it to get the links to those sources. Like when you use Wikipedia as a jumping off point. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where we have the problem Wikipedia sometimes has that the sources used sometimes themselves just cite Wikipedia.

I’ve found bing ai is quite good if you ask for the source after anything it spits out.