Because the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.
I think you mean "Because the UK wants them, only 2% or so of illegal immigrants arrive by boats".
Boris Johnson did Brexit "to stop the immigrants" ... and opened the floodgates. The very opposite of what his campaign promised. The very opposite of WHY the British public wanted Brexit.
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.
This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
You're implying they should have been kept there? I'm not following. It looks like they were maliciously sent there without an agreement, and still were treated humanely and forwarded somewhere that agreed to take them...? You're criticizing this?
And the border communities loved having them there and invited them? Everything I said was factual. The voters of those northern communities love supporting policies as long as they happen someplace else. A thing called luxury beliefs.
> Although their travel to Massachusetts was facilitated by DeSantis, the migrants who arrived on Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday came from Texas. The DeSantis administration paid an aviation company, Vertol Systems Company Inc., $615,000 to transport the migrants from San Antonio to the exclusive vacation enclave.
So Florida spent $615,000 to pick up some people from Texas and dump them on an island in Massachusetts?
...and you imagine that this makes the people in Massachusetts look bad?
This is more likely going to be a situation where they were always xenophobic.
There's a rather uncomfortable interview with a local resident (of many years) who is Australian with a Jamaican husband, saying "well great now I know all my neighbours hate foreigners".
This isn't a good example of xenophobia, assuming you are using the word for its colloquial implications (I.e. simple race-adjacent hatred, and not just the fear of a large group of new strangers of a culture or circumstance that is alien to your community).
Have you read the book or your kids just read it without you knowing what is it about?
This book says basically - no biggie, there is no death, you commit suicide to move to another level to be with your brother, you can't lose him, you have infinite lives in this videogame called Life. And what if I F up the next level? no biggie, you just commit suicide again to be with him, there is no such thing as permanent death/separation from your loved ones, after each death you just move to another level. That's really F up thing to teach small kids, who should know death is permanent.
I think you miss the point of this book. Karl had tuberculosis, Jonathan died saving him from a fire despite knowing Karl would soon die (which he did). No suicide there, only tragedy. Then they had an "afterlife" which is full of the adventure they wished they had when they were alive - which also means that there's some serious darkness there to fight, so not heaven by any means. In the end, Karl gets to do for Jonathan essentially what he did for him, and they're ready to move on. They didn't commit suicide, they were already dead. I don't think a single Swedish kid killed themselves over misunderstanding this book, they didn't miss the part that the brothers really treasured life and it was a tragedy that they died in the first chapter.
I don't know why you are down voted. Death was so much more present in kids lives back then. Death from diseases and injuries so common. Kids having dead siblings entirely normal.
Musk probably made more dollar millionaires than anyone in history. Facebook advertisers use it because it works and reaches a hell of a lot of people.
I don't think Facebook advertisers are being particularly irrational, it's just very interesting to point out how this ad business, despite leaving most of its users ultimately unsatisfied, can be so profitable.
I don't think that is an answerable question. It is just an excuse for people justifying a hamfisted intervention into society that actually would do more harm than good.
There is a malaise in the west and Meta is just a symptom. More institutional power is a bad idea when institutions are dysfunctional.
OLED also has a deep history with a pretty famous opinions that it is impossible and a waste of time and money for companies to invest in the development. So does AI. From inception to product it is normal for decades to pass.
Compute needs change. AI needs are pretty unique in terms of scale and type of compute requirements to anything else so far.
Every time we tried it, it resulted in a worse experience than we knew could be done using native stacks. It is like using sand as a foundation for your house. Random version updates break random things. As soon as you need something a bit advanced on the platform, you are stuck with some barely supported library. Easy to start, hard to maintain and hard to ship a solid product.
The body gets used to melatonin. It is actually a crap sleep supplement. It works worse every time you take it. What you should be doing is give the body the ingredients it needs to make its own melatonin like it is suppose to work.
reply