Coronation
In 1994 Prince Charles promised to be a defender of faith rather than the faith. The BBC has some disturbing news on his coronation plans:
"Despite changes designed to reflect other faiths, the three oaths the King will take and form the heart of the service remain unchanged, including the promise to maintain "the Protestant Reformed Religion"
Less than half of the UK now claim to be Christian. An established religion is as much of an embarrassing relic as the monarchy itself. This is disappointing, but the shocker is that we're being asked to pledge allegiance:
"The order of service will read: "All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
Modern democracy or Game of Thrones? I personally refuse to bend the fucking knee. At least with his mother there was a polite pretense that the allegiance worked the other way round.
Let's disestablish the Church of England, kick out the lords and elect an upper chamber (or establish legislative service) and re-join the EU as a humble republic.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
- Coho Salmon in Lagunitas Creek
- Routers to defend against rogue IoT devices
- Sunny afternoon at Fort Funston (a timelapse)
(Published to the Fediverse as: Coronation #politics #monarchy #brexit #eu #democracy #political reform #legislativeservice The plans for the coronation of King Charles make me double down on freedom of religion and political reform in the UK. )
Digital Services Act
Looks like the Digital Services Act is going to be interesting. Vice reports:
"Furthermore, if the European Commission listens to the Parliament's recommendations, large tech companies may find it harder to actually keep users on their platforms in the first place. That’s because at least in the discussions so far, there’s been an emphasis on looking into interoperability between different platforms, meaning that users could move and communicate between them using open protocols."
I have repeatedly called for this, it's the best way to break apart Facebook and get people back to talking to friends and not being manipulated by algorithms. But also:
"They also wrote that “User-targeted amplification of content based on the views in such content is one of the most detrimental practices in the digital society, especially when such content is amplified on the basis of previous user interaction with other amplified content and with the purpose of optimising user profiles for targeted advertisements.”"
Being the EU, I worry that we still get the ads and maybe some additional cruft to dismiss or not at the bottom of the screen. Instead they'll focus on the content and there will be more banned speech, or platforms will be responsible for truth which I don't think is the way forward.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
(Published to the Fediverse as: Digital Services Act #politics #dsa #eu #facebook Could the Digital Services Act force interoperability between social media platforms? )
What do you get when you multiply six by nine? Brexit.
“Good Morning,” said the Electorate at last.
“Er… good morning, O Electorate,” said Cameron nervously, “do you have… er, that is…”
“An answer for you?” interrupted the Electorate majestically. “Yes, I have.”
“There really is one?” breathed Cameron.
“There really is one,” confirmed the Electorate.
“To Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
“Yes, though I don’t think,” added the Electorate, that you’re going to like it.”
“Doesn’t matter!” said Cameron, “We must know it! Now!”
“All right,” said the Electorate, “The answer to Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Is…”
“Yes…!”
“Is…”
“Yes…!!!…”
“Brexit.”
“I’m going to get lynched, aren’t I?”
“I checked it very thoroughly,” said the Electorate, “and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.”
“But it was Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” howled Cameron.
“Yes,” said the Electorate with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, “but what does that actually mean?”
“Well, you know, enjoy the benefits of the single market without being part of it, points based immigration here but still retire to Spain, restore the sovereignty of parliament without actually letting it vote…” said Cameron weakly.
“Exactly!” said the Electorate. “So once you do know what the question actually is, you’ll know what the answer means.”
“Look, all right, all right,” said Cameron, “can you just please tell me the question?”
“Tricky.”
“But can you do it?”
“No, but I’ll tell you who can,” said the Electorate.
“Who? Tell me!”
“I speak of none but the referendum that is to come next,” intoned the Electorate, “A referendum whose merest subordinate clauses I am not worthy to comprehend. A referendum that will actually tell us what Brexit is. A referendum of such infinite and subtle complexity that understanding ATM modernization under Single Sky and the medical implications of leaving Euratom shall form part of its introductory reading material…”
(Apologies to Douglas Adams)Related Posts
You Might Also Like
- StackOverflow DevDays
- Was there ever any doubt that I would eventually write this post?
- San Francisco
(Published to the Fediverse as: What do you get when you multiply six by nine? Brexit. #politics #brexit #eu Good Morning said the Electorate at last. Good Morning, O Electorate, said Cameron nervously... )
Brexit Prize
The Institute of Economic Affairs has announced the 'Brexit Prize', a competition for the best blueprint for a UK exit from the European Union. First prize is 100,000 Euros, so it's worth a shot.
My plan: Beat Puerto Rico to becoming the 51st state.
I was just about to send this in when I read the instructions:
"At both stages, potential entrants should ask Amelia Abplanalp on [email protected] – for an entry number, preferably at least seven days before the closing date. Entrants should create two pdfs. One of those documents should only have the entry number as an identifier. The other document should have the entry number, name and contact details of the entrant on the cover page..."
It goes on like this and sounds like some EU directive relating to banana curvature. And don't you contact someone at an email address rather than on one? Must be an early April Fools' joke...
Related Posts
- What do you get when you multiply six by nine? Brexit.
- New Scientist on Immigration
- Instead of punishing bankers why not disrupt them?
You Might Also Like
(Published to the Fediverse as: Brexit Prize #politics #eu #brexit My (strangely losing) entry for the Brexit Prize, make the UK the 51st state! )
Instead of punishing bankers why not disrupt them?
I'm not the biggest fan of banks. Not content with crashing the world economy my own bank took the time to personally defraud me. The EU is currently planning to cap banker bonuses and this is just nuts.
It feels like an attack on the UK, where the lions share of our economy is banking and people coming to see the Queen.
It feels anti-capitalist - why bankers? Why not footballers or movie stars or orthodontists?
But mostly it feels like the wrong form of revenge, too easy to circumvent and ultimately likely to be toothless. Banks may say they have to pay outlandish bonuses to attract the best talent, but really it means the industry is ripe for innovation. Regulators should figure out and then remove barriers to entry (and throw up barriers to unfair competition, and hold competitions to encourage innovation) so that startups and software can eat the financial services sector.
Too big to fail all at once, but not too big to be disrupted into irrelevance.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
(Published to the Fediverse as: Instead of punishing bankers why not disrupt them? #politics #banks #eu Instead of ignorable fines why not punish bad bank behavior by sowing the seeds of their eventual irrelevance? )