Yeah, I think you’ve made a mistake in thinking that this is going to be usable as generative AI.

Possibly not on its own but that’s not really the issue: Once you have a classifier you can use its judgements to train a generator. PhotoDNA faces the same issue that’s the reason why it’s not available to the general public.

Yep if NK wants to attack SK they should do it directly instead of having their proxy invade one of SK’s arms suppliers.

Alas, it’s not trivial to move houses from deserted villages into booming cities. Plenty of European cities already have anti-speculation and rent controls in place, it’s not really helping.

Quickest and cheapest option would be to expand public transport actually, I think, spread out the pressure, combined with more remote work. Once you’ve got a steady, if overall tiny, de-urbanisation trickle going on urban prices are going to tank.

The kicker is that in any member state that’d be politics trying to bury something in procedure, while on the European level it’s the only way to get anything done. Leave out a step and the thing just fizzles because noone even knows about it.

…not, I mean, quitting X. But in general.

We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.

That’s less than Germany gives Palestine each year and Palestine is vastly smaller. 200M are about five bucks per Ukrainian, per year. That’s five litres of milk. A not entirely shabby bottle of wine. Five bucks a year are about 40ct a month, or about 1/1250th of the average Ukrainian wage. You can get a metro ticket for that. And how much of that was even spent in Ukraine itself, as opposed to paying people in America to decide what to do with the money.

Ukraine is Europe-poor, not Africa-poor. It’s a fully developed and industrialised country. 200M is ballpark Poroshenko’s yearly increase in wealth while in power. Not, mind you, all of it ill-begotten (by capitalist standards) he does produce some fine chocolate.

I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)

Not what I said. I said that politics can be bought, not that all money buys politics, or that all politics is bought. On top of that it’s not always a bad thing, say funnelling some money to an NGO or newspaper keen on exposing corruption.

Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.

She’s a witch, she did it!

Occam’s razor cannot account for leaving out context, for data not considered, for tunnel vision. If you’re only reductionist enough you can use it to justify absolutely any conclusion.

It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.

WTH is “pro-US” supposed to mean. I’m not aware of Poroshenko selling state-owned enterprises to US corporate interest or such for way below value, that would the the usual thing to look out for.

Same is with Ukraine - I do not need them.

You need Europe. The US pulling out of providing aid would be one thing, the US trying to force Ukraine into giving into aggression would be interpreted as blatant betrayal of the alliance by every single European country. Don’t expect us to stay allies when you actively work against our security interests, and don’t expect us to let it happen. We can defeat Russia in Ukraine, or we can defeat Russia in the Baltics, in Poland. We prefer doing it in Ukraine: Unlike you we know what war is like. Not war as in “dad comes home with shrapnel in his leg and PTSD”, war as in “your hometown is gone and everyone is either dead or starving”. You have no fucking concept.

And if you think that the US would fare well if Europe considers it a strategic threat… my sweet, sweet, summer child. You’d be unable to afford your own military-industrial complex without those arms exports and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economical abyss you’d be in. That would not be popular, and that’s also precisely the reason why Trump would rather waterboard himself than risk it. Especially for a loser like Putin who can’t even re-take Kursk.

I don’t care. I don’t want to, my life is comfortable.

Life in Ukraine was nice, once, too. Don’t think something won’t affect you just because you don’t want to deal with it. Life ain’t a bowl of cherries. Noone is expecting you to fight. Solidarity, though? Think about it. It’s what friends do.

It’s a majority either way.

And the king has no political influence. The gripe of the Aborigines is with the people actually running the country, with (portions of) the prevailing sentiment in the rest of the population, not the king. The king is just a symbol, a mascot, a piece of ceremony, this is like blaming Bugs Bunny that your movie script got refused.

The king didn’t make the Voice referendum fail. That was, best I can tell, a mixture of Chinese bot farms and “yep we should do something but this is not it”. There’s of course also racists around but they would’ve been drowned out by the rest of the electorate where it not for those factors.

I don’t think reconciliation failed, I don’t think even the Voice idea failed, but it needs more workshopping, say, having a wider set of established advisory bodies (just spitballing). Over here there’s a minority party which is exempt from the electoral threshold, that’s another idea. Whether Australia is a monarchy or republic has quite literally nothing to do with that, it’s an orthogonal issue.

…and how come I’m the fucking only one in this thread actually talking about aboriginal rights? Why’s everyone so fucking focussed on the monarchy thing, at the expense of those issues?

it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?

One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You’re embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.

And, no, of course it’s not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.

And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he’s not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he’d have been my first pick.

You shouldn’t be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That’s not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.

Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?

Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine’s own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn’t an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.

Yet another angle: The Russians weren’t able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.

Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?

No. There’s still a majority for it, though. Why isn’t she shouting at the prime minister “you’re not my government” is what I’m saying.

He is an extraordinarily wealthy man who has a platform that many will listen to.

And he did quite some of that indeed before his coronation. Couldn’t shut up, some would say. Among other things, he’s never been opposed to Australian republicanism. Now he’s bound to protocol, and the protocol says that the King is not to voice any even remotely political opinion whatsoever. He can comment on how nice the food was, that’s about it.

Regarding wealth he’s something like the 2000th wealthiest person on earth. Theoretically, can’t find him on the billionaire list though he reportedly just about makes it. Lots of people have inherited more money and done way worse with it. I don’t think it should be possible to inherit that kind of fortune but that applies in general, not just to monarchs.

Everyone has agency, stop pretending one of the richest and most privileged people in the world just doesn’t have any other choice.

The crown is not a person, it cannot choose anything. As said: If Charles abdicates, Parliament will just recognise the next in line (William) as King. And push come to shove there’s no end to that line.

Tell them “no thank you, I don’t think my role as king of a colony is appropriate”.

First off, Australia is not a colony, it is an independent Kingdom. Secondly, it’d still be up to Australia to then abolish the monarchy, or force-retire him for behaviour unbefitting for a king and go with William, or whatever.

The monarchy exists because people are lazy and just let it keep existing,

Then blame the people. Blame them for being lazy. Blame them for not agreeing. But why blame a monarch for not needlessly causing a constitutional crisis? He’s a mascot, he’s doing his job just as in other countries a President is doing their job, and when you compare what he says and does before and after coronation it also becomes obvious that he’s playing a role. He literally shut up about absolutely everything ever since he got that crown.

People calling him illegitimate is the right and proper response to him pretending he has some special place in Australian society.

If Aussies want to get rid of the monarchy then they can. Noone but themselves is stopping them. Until they do, you can’t blame the monarchy for not telling its subjects what they’re supposed to do with the monarchy. For one simple reason: If the monarchy were to abolish itself it would be committing an undemocratic act.

Best I know according to their legal tradition the monarchy cannot possibly do that, only Parliament can, because only it has the power. Charles himself could abdicate but that would not abolish the monarchy, the title would instead move to the next one in line.

He dissolved parliament based on what rules written by whom, on whose orders?

Hint hint: Based on the Australian constitution, written by Australians, on the order (well, “advice”, same thing in this case) of the Australian Prime Minister.

Prosecutors have a lead against someone holding Ukrainian citizenship. That doesn’t say anything more than that someone with Ukrainian citizenship was involved, in particular it doesn’t say that he’s not a Russian operative. Or Polish, for that matter, the Poles were uncharacteristically uncooperative.

In any case it’s not like Germany would be mad it’s the wheels of justice churning as usual. Heck at this point I haven’t ruled out that it was a German operation. The whole yacht theory is in general on shaky ground because one does not just lower some sea mines with a yacht. Or smuggle them to a Polish port. etc., etc.

No blame on Westminster, at all? Like, we’re ignoring that the UK was a (flawed, but still) democracy for most of Australia’s colonial period?

And how would him abdicating help the situation in Australia?

He’s taken up a duty, and he’s fulfilling it. That includes being a symbol, and as such getting attacked for the past and present wrongs of Britain, Australia, etc. Still doesn’t make him responsible, though, in precisely the same way that Bugs Bunny is not responsible for the acts of the board of Warner Brothers.

The kingdom is 2.210.403km², it’s huge, 12th largest state in the world, larger than Saudi Arabia or Mexico. Most of it is Greenland though and it’s going to be difficult planting forests on glaciers so I think they mean metropolitan Denmark.

I’m not saying he deserves anything I’m saying he has no choice but to be the king, best he could do is abdicate but that only would put his son in the same position. It’s up to Australia to abolish the monarchy, not House Windsor.

Last I checked Australia is independent, and last I checked I also said that Australia has to account for a lot of failures when it comes to addressing indigenous concerns.

Nothing of which has anything to do with Charles who has literally zero power over the situation. I’m pretty much as republican as people can possibly be but let’s not blame on powerless monarchs what’s actually the fault of elected representatives. Gets into the way of holding them accountable.

Noone’s forcing Charles on Australia. Aussies are generally in favour of becoming a republic, thing is they can’t agree on what kind of head of state they want so for the time being it’s gonna continue to be the British Monarch.

There’s lots to be said about the failure of Australia to properly address indigenous concerns, literally nothing Charles can do about that but be a symbol to throw ire at to get some press coverage. He can’t even tell “his government” to deal with the issue, the thing he tells “his government” to do is whatever the government tells him to. They’re writing their own marching orders.