Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.

I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”

Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.

This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.

I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.

Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.

If the UK got rid of its nukes then we’d just be defenceless against Russia, China, and even the US if the US decides they don’t value their old allies (which seems to be the case these days).

Defending the UK given the current state of the world is sensible, but I wonder how they’ll raise the cash for this

Brit here. I think this is the most common tea-making process for Brits:

1. Use an electric kettle to boil some water (I think Americans often don’t have electric kettles, but nearly all Brits have them)
2. Get your teabag(s) (often 1 teabag per mug of tea) and either put them in a teapot, or put them straight into mugs, whichever you prefer
3. Pour the boiled water into the teapot or into the mugs to brew the tea
4. Poke the teabag(s) around with a spoon (I usually use the spoon to squeeze the teabag(s) against the side of the teapot/mug because it seems to make the tea stronger)
5. If you brewed the tea in a teapot, now is the time to pour it out into your mug(s)
6. Add milk to the tea in the mugs if desired (most Brits have milk in tea)
7. Add sugar to the tea in the mugs if desired (some people have no sugar, some have 1 or 2 teaspoons of sugar, some have more)
8. Enjoy your tea, but remember that it will initially be hot

Also you need to remove the teabag from each mug if you brewed the tea straight in the mug. I usually remove it before adding milk, but I think some people remove it after adding milk.

What kind of tea

I think the most common variety of tea in the UK is called English Breakfast. If you’re in another country and you find English Breakfast tea then that’s probably the most similar to standard British tea. Some Brits have other types of tea like Earl Grey, but that’s not as common.

condiments

See the steps about milk and sugar above.

what separates a good tea from a bad tea

I think most Brits like relatively strong tea, where the teabags have had a proper chance to brew. Some Brits might prefer weaker tea though.

whens a bad time to bring out tea versus a good one

I think a lot of Brits would say there’s never a bad time for tea.

You fuck with iced tea or is that a sin?

It’s not that common in the UK. You can buy bottles of iced tea in the average British supermarket, but it’s a bit of a niche drink.

Maybe it could. Starmer and his government have become more critical of Israel recently.

I think the Netherlands and Germany both have proportional representation and their parliaments have a bigger mix of parties, representing the interests of different sections of society.

I don’t favour PR because I think PR would be a better vehicle for my personal political views. I favour PR because I think a more democratic system is by itself a good thing. Under PR, every vote counts. But under FPTP, if you vote for a smaller party that has no chance of winning your constituency, your vote is essentially worthless.

Yeah PR probably won’t happen for years at least. I hope we get it at some point though.

I think it’s a good idea. People wear backpacks like that when they go hiking or running, so keeping one by your bed seems okay. But yeah you’d have to clean it out somewhat regularly. Or just have a glass of water somewhere near your bed like a lot of people do.

Maybe the president of the EU commission could be directly elected by EU citizens. I just think it might involve people a bit more in EU democracy. They might feel they have more democratic control over the EU.

As for the “travelling circus”, I was just replying to a post which raised that point, but I think he makes sense by saying that moving the parliament around seems wasteful.

I agree that moving the parliament between two different places seems dumb. If it’s cheaper to remain in one place then they should do that.

As for corruption and misuse of funds, maybe that does happen. Maybe the solution though is to elect better politicians to run the EU, rather than leave the EU.

I’ve thought in the past that maybe the EU should have a directly elected president, in addition to EU citizens voting for European parliament members. This might allow for more democratic accountability of the EU. Someone might run for the presidency on a platform of stamping out misuse of EU funds.

Can I ask what specifically you think was corrupt/wasteful? As for unaccountability, we were able to vote for new members of the European parliament.

No, my reading is just fine actually. If you want to get mad about what I’ve said, well that’s your problem I guess.

Yeah I don’t think their family would be relevant in that case. If the next PM did start supporting Russia then I would criticise them for that decision, regardless of whether family connections influenced their decision or not.

Anyway. Like I say, we don’t seem to know whether Starmer’s wife even has Israeli citizenship. I definitely think it would be wrong to assume she does just because she’s Jewish.

But even if Starmer’s wife does have Israeli citizenship, that doesn’t necessarily make Starmer pro-Israel. He might be too pro-Israel, but a hypothetical Israeli wife wouldn’t necessarily make him pro-Israel.

OBS has a techy following though, rather than an audience of mainstream people who aren’t especially tech-savvy.

I suppose perhaps the best example of a successful open source social media platform is Bluesky. Some people on Lemmy don’t like Bluesky (and I don’t use Bluesky myself) but it’s getting at least some mainstream traction.

If Bluesky continues to grow then maybe a European open source social media platform could work. In fact maybe some European government or company could set up a Bluesky server.

I definitely want people to have control over their data. And I like open source platforms, which is why I’m using Lemmy. But I just think if we want a European social media platform that sees widespread adoption among normal people, then such a platform would probably have proprietary elements. Surely if it was completely open source then some company could come along, take the open source stuff, bolt on some proprietary novelties, and start grabbing market share.

Most people want to use a service which is big and popular and just works, and I don’t think they care about code licensing…

It would be cool if Europe could make a really successful, open source social media platform which most Europeans want to use, but if it was open source then I expect some company (maybe a foreign one) would take the code, bolt on some proprietary features, and start stealing users.

Realistically though, proprietary tech services tend to be more successful. Whether it’s Facebook, or Windows, or the most successful European tech service: Spotify.

I like open source, but realistically if we want a successful European social media platform, it would probably be largely proprietary.