[–] 19 points 2 years ago (4 children)

They couldn’t even be bothered developing their own apps for it. The mail app began to lag behind Outlook on Android, Minecraft was never ported to it when it could have been a killer exclusive app.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As I understand it, the efficiency of a wind turbine increases with blade size, so multiple smaller personal wind turbines are less efficient than fewer, larger turbines that serve a neighbourhood, as well as costing much more and using more overall resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    It’s an entirely intentional deception. People get the fear that they’ll not be able to pass on their 3-bed semi-detached*, a dinner table set and the last dregs of a private pension to their kids, so they vote so that rich people don’t have to redistribute wealth.

    • Usual caveat for London 🙄
  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    AV+ was not a PR method and only offered minor benefits above FPTP. It would still lead to a concentration of power between the two main parties, but it would increase the overall number of seats gained by a centrist party.

    AV+ suited the Tories (and Labour) only slightly less well than FPTP, but Lib Dems would have been a much bigger spare leg if it had gone through. For the Tories, it was a win-win result.

    In other words, the LDs allowed themselves to make another compromise, being tempted with another minor power grab, and in doing so allowed themselves to be outplayed again, and didn’t even gain us the minor democratic benefits AV+ had to offer.

    As for AV+ being a short leap to PR, I have doubts, even though I voted in favour of it. PR would be less beneficial than AV+ to the three main parties now, so why would the LDs try to push it through? Also the referendum would have been used as a weapon - “the people voted so we can’t change it” - just as has been done for election reform, the Scottish Referendum and Brexit since.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The costs are high. Finance regulations force the banks to investigate high-profile clients for any conflicts of interest or reasons where a bank may be facilitating something illegal or sanctioned. It is literally illegal for the bank not to perform these checks. They can’t just put on blinkers and claim ignorance.

    It would be at least negligent to shareholders, and possibly outright illegal, not to act on that information if there were significant risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›