No.

The courts can only interpret the law. The wording of the law refers to ‘sex’ i.e. Biological sex, not gender, hence the ruling.

Only the media is talking about the ‘definition of a woman’. This is not what the ruling is on.

That isn’t to say that the equalities act shouldn’t be changed to also include gender, I strongly believe it should and hope against hope that the Labour government will, but it is not in the supreme court’s power to enact new law.

Lack of understanding of the legal system leads to a lot of misdirected anger, I’m on your side, but be angry at the right people.

You’ll be a better programmer in any language if you can understand a systems language like C. No need to become an expert, just the basics of manual memory management will help you understand what other languages are hiding from you.

Outside

Don’t you dare remind me how long ago 2010 was

Or provide UBI to share the wealth generated by increased societal productivity

The stories don’t have to be true for the actual history of who did what and why to be interesting.

Play a different game

Not to be that guy but a Large Language Model doesn’t generate images. This Is from a diffusion model

Write better code, with good names and sensible interfaces. Comments can get bugs just like code, but it doesn’t have a compiler or unit tests, so only code review keeps it aligned.

There is only one season of Altered Carbon

That is also my point. Don’t worry though, you keep impeaching him until he dissolves congress.

You’re response being ‘yeah but you can be impeached multiple times’ exactly demonstrates the weakness of that action.

Yep that’s my point

I disagree, I think the removal of ads is often painted as a benefit that had inherent value. Look at YouTube premium or Prime video. Both haven’t actually improved their offering, just made it worse by introducing ads and insisting users that don’t want to see ads have to pay for the privilege of not being advertised to.

This means the total price adds up to higher than 100% of the product value, because it’s a ‘premium’ version that comes without advertisement inconvenience.

If his actions benefit Russia is he not an asset to them? The question should be is he a Russian actor or just a useful idiot to them.

Didn’t you guys try that before?

Paying for the product and paying to not be inconvenienced by ads have become separate things. The first is standard business, the second is extortion.

I think what you’re trying to say is that the social commentary has lost a lot of nuance, as well as the general quality of the writing going down, in which case I agree. Kinda toeing the line of the ‘everything is woke now’ crowd though, to which I would say you haven’t seen/understood much Doctor Who if you think social issues are only recently a part of the stories.

For the record the Rosa Parks ep was one of my favourites for Jodie, but it’s a low bar.

That goes without saying. You bringing it up what people are down-voting, because of the implication that this somehow justifies the actions of the IDF in Palestine.

Feel free to contribute any features you feel it is missing