how much effort they put on showing the world the consequences of extremely stupid acts so the rest don’t have to do it.

Kinda sucks to be the world’s policy alpha tester though.

You think given how well thought through this online safety act has been that they’ll understand that would be an issue and legislate accordingly?

How many small businesses can afford such permit? Hell, I’d argue that even bigger companies will have a problem paying for that.

Feature, not a bug.

They want people back in offices to help landlords and property prices. This way they can say that remote work is not banned and it’s just companies choosing not to buy a permit and offer it.

Oh that makes it easier for the government.

Maybe that the end goal, force people back into the office by banning vpn

Ban remote working, vpn now only allowed from business addresses as registered with companies house.

Next step: ban on remote work.

What I don’t get is why it’s ok to view that at 18 but not at 17 years and 364 days. Surely just ban the site for everyone.

For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm.

So they’ve identified a problem with this type of content, and the answer is to put it behind an age wall. So is it a-ok for anyone over 18 to be encouraged to self harm or commit suicide according to the government?

This is a good point, however the me meme is comparing to 1996. I think there’s some way to go until it drops back that far.

Oh that’s fine then. Just call it the climate emergency or catastrophe.

No, they’re notes. What I’m saying is your logic applies equally to bank notes as it does to cheques.

By that logic bank notes are not cash, only coins are cash.

Look at a bank note and read what it says: " I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five/ten/twenty/fifty pounds" the the signature of the governer of the Bank of England (or whichever Scottish bank issued it). They’re literally promissory notes in lieu of cash.

So what’s Europe getting out of this? Or have they just rolled over and let the bully win?

I think it’s just some people have realised it pays well.

Because people are reliant on debt because wages haven’t kept pace with expected standards of living.

Of for more ago well off people some cards offer perks like cash back or air miles and it’s free if you pay it off in full each month.

Also, in my country at least, you get more protection if you have an issue with the goods you’ve bought. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

No it doesn’t. Shops pay transaction fees and pass that cost into all customers equally whether they’re paying cash or card.

Taking physical cash, counting it, loss of cash through error or malace, buying change, physically banking it (taking it themselves or using a cash collection company) costs businesses too. So actually maybe they’re passing on the cost of this rather than the transaction fees.

It’s true that China’s co2 per capita has gone up sharply, however it’s still about 30% lower than the yanks. China is also dwarfing other countries with the amounts of renewable energy currently under construction https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/solar_wind_in_construction_treemap_for_online-1.png

Oh, yes. Reading it again you’re correct. I was looking for the number of letter on the sentence. When it clearly says of. Guess I don’t deserve to vote.

Deleted

Should, not must. Like the highway code should rules and must rules.