Yes? That’s why loans with collateral charge a lower interest rate than unsecured loans.

Hey if you’re colourblind, all blues can be blurple. And so can all purples!

Most of the death toll is women and children (7k and 10k, respectively). Even if you assume all men killed are Hamas fighters, which is not true, that is very high when compared to the attack which triggered the war.

The requirement to not track users with cookies does not extend to cookies that make the site work in the first place, such as those which track your login session, or your refusal of other cookies.

It had two buildings. Is that difficult to understand or what? Historically they were separate schools built close together. (Probably a boys and girls school but I don’t remember)

Each had a main part that was a single corridor on 4 floors with classrooms off it. There were extra bits that weren’t part of the main corridor, too, which weren’t as tall, and the main part also wasn’t all classrooms; in one building the bottom floor was, I think, just toilets and changing rooms, then admin offices, and only then were there classrooms, but I can’t remember for sure. In the other building there were 3 complete floors of classrooms and I think one half floor, with the rest of the bottommost floor occupied by a gym.

Surely any kid who went to only one high school is going to have, at the time, thought it was perfectly normal because that’s all they knew? I think our school had 4 floors in both buildings

Tesla is headquartered in an ally of the EU; BYD isn’t. Maybe Tesla’s subsidies are a problem to the EC - I don’t know. But you’re looking at it in a slightly simple way, as if it’s very important that this process needs to be fair.

It doesn’t need to be fair; it needs to be good for the EU. Is it good for the EU to impose tariffs on subsidised Chinese vehicles coming in (if indeed they are subsidised)? Quite possibly. (Quite possibly not: how important is it to have a big car manufacturing industry, versus your population having cheaper cars?) Whether it would also be good to impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles is also a valid question to ask, but those questions don’t have to have the same answer.

The article doesn’t suggest it’s impossible. It’s difficult because you have to build up a competitive business from nothing in addition to the one you’re already building up.

If the US said they were going to stop providing military support and tech it may well stop it…

I don’t understand why you would ban it in a country where it has been consumed traditionally. Is there a public health reason behind this?

Anyone, because even the (temporary) right to remain somewhere doesn’t automatically mean you can leave and come back. In the UK if you are granted temporary leave to stay in the country for less than 6 months, leaving for any length of time will mean you’re not allowed back in.

The detail here is that she applied for settled status, which would have granted her leave to remain in (and hence to enter) the country, but it was refused. Pending her appeal she was temporarily granted the right to work in the UK, but she was not temporarily granted the right to remain, it seems - or at least that’s what the Home Office position implies.

It seems like an oversight to me: the application for settled status allows you to leave for up to 6 months at a time and come back and still qualify; if you can still work while you’re appealing a decision, it would make sense to temporarily allow the person into the country.

Shouldn’t the engineer be a bit more worried if the cable’s been cut?

If UDP drops packets it’s probably nothing. If TCP drops packets it’s because something’s actually wrong.

If you’re using TCP and losing packets you should be panicking though, because something is very wrong…

OK, looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. Fair enough.

I agree that the PATRIOT act has harmed American citizens, but I think that’s a completely Western-centric way of thinking that likely wouldn’t even cross the mind of a radical Islamist. I don’t think it can be said to have harmed the USA in the way that would further any of bin Laden’s goals that we can infer from his words or otherwise. If anything, bin Laden was an authoritarian himself and so would be more likely to believe that state surveillance is beneficial to the wellbeing of the state.

One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes?

Seems to me you’re still saying 9/11 couldn’t have achieved it.

You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism?

I want you to lay out why you think the PATRIOT act or something like it was likely foreseen by bin Laden and why he thought it would likely further his goals. You’re hinting at a discussion from the perspective of “privacy-oriented types” rather than from bin Laden’s perspective. There’s to be done here than just argue, “bin Laden wanted to harm America, and eroding privacy harms America, therefore bin Laden did 9/11 to erode privacy.” Many consequences of 9/11 might further or hinder bin Laden’s goals, but IMO we’re talking about more than that.

Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed?

Because it’s the one that I see repeated most often by others and the one find most doubtful.

Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

Because we started with a disagreement over what his goals were and you seem to have maintained your side of that disagreement? If you say “it was X, Y and Z” and I say, “no, it was A and B” and you then say “how on earth could what he did have achieved A” you’re not actually arguing about “how” you’re expressing your skepticism that it was A by casting doubt on how realistic it was.

I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings.

You haven’t expressed a reason to believe that bin Laden wanted the USA to pass a law like the PATRIOT Act. You’ve made implications that you maybe don’t actually believe it that strongly, but not gone so far as to say that you don’t believe it, and you’ve talked about the other things you believe, but you’re quite reticent to talk about that one.

I don’t mind leaving aside the other stuff because this one, I think, is more egregious.

Just because you couch it in terms of opinion doesn’t mean it’s not a claim about truth; you’re just not saying you’re certain of it. I wouldn’t expect certainty - I would just expect that whatever you do believe you believe for a reason, and that you would be able to articulate that reason, which you aren’t doing.

With your successive replies it sounds like you’re more comfortable defending the position that “bin Laden’s stated goals are unbelievable” than “bin Laden’s goal was to make the USA pass liberty-reducing legislation.” It’s OK if, on reflection, you think the latter isn’t really supported by the facts and that’s why you’re not defending it or giving a reason for it.

Unlikely - it’s too cheap to get rid of. It will degrade its effectiveness as it’ll need to deploy, fire very few rounds, then leave, unlike traditionally where a battery might fire loads of rounds before moving off.

Are you unable to see how we have harmed ourselves since then? How about how Israel is harming themselves right now?

This is just an invitation to commit the post-hoc fallacy.

I’m not claiming any truth or facts or anything

But you said:

Similar to how Bin Laden very much succeeded in his goals

That’s an assertion/claim as to what those goals in fact were. And you still haven’t found any reason that they included “make the US pass laws which restricted its own civil liberties” other than the fact that that’s what eventually happened.