https://theconversation.com/palestine-action-what-it-means-to-proscribe-a-group-and-what-the-effects-could-be-259619

This article states that injuries are alleged to have resulted from the group’s actions. I should have added this to my original comment in the first place, but better late than never.

I was adding an edit to that part of my comment to clarify as you were submitting yours. I agree that it doesn’t even look like they’re seeking to injure anyone.

You’re right. I wasn’t clear. It doesn’t look like they’re going out of their way to cause grievous injury though.

So you can now be a terrorist without blowing anyone up or otherwise killing anyone. Merely inconveniencing and injuring (Edit 2: through carelessness rather than malice, by the look of it) is sufficient.

Therefore the UK government, in that act where they took away benefits, inconveniencing and causing indirect injury to many, is by this definition a terrorist organisation. (And likewise the government before them.)

Edit: Forgot the obvious point: Clearly, since the IDF like blowing up and killing people and are not classified as terrorists, that either means that such actions are not terrorist actions any more and only the milder actions now qualify, or they are the worst kind of terrorists and should be labelled as such.

Edit 3: Source stating there may have been injuries associated with the group’s actions: https://theconversation.com/palestine-action-what-it-means-to-proscribe-a-group-and-what-the-effects-could-be-259619

Has Putin started being paranoid about his food and drinks yet?

If, as rumours suggest, the DPRK is in the habit of punishing the families of defectors, I can only hope he was an unattached man with no family.

At the very least, I’m sure someone in charge of the border patrol at the north side is going to get a stern talking to.

As to those family punishment rumours, I can imagine the DPRK might like people to believe them, even if they’re not true. It would go some way to discourage people from doing things like this.

Well, once you’ve had your country invaded by rabid psychopaths, there’s bound to be some gene admixture (to put that far too mildly) and so you’ve a chance that their descendents, even if it’s recessive and rare, will have the desire go on to do the same.

Of course, rabid psychopathy and the urge to invade other places can also come about on its own, but when you look at the way the Vikings and their Germanic cousins invaded western Europe a thousand years or so ago, and then note what happened a few hundred years later, it has to make you wonder whether it might have only happened the once.

“will protect the most vulnerable,"

It’s often useful to imagine that they know what people will think they mean when they say things like that, but that they actually mean an entirely different “most vulnerable” group: MPs, their friends and associates.

For anyone who has somehow missed this bit of business knowledge, it’s extremely common practice to delay paying something for as long as legally possible, if not longer, to the point it’s expected that your debtors will do this, and that you’ll do the same to everyone else in return. It was set up so that small businesses got time to pay for things, but of course, it was immediately corrupted by large businesses to screw over the little guy as well.

I worked for a company that used the pay late tactic, and did this often enough and long enough to one smaller creditor that the creditor managed to issue a winding-up order, which was - or so I gathered - a nuisance to have to sort out.

The downsides are 1) you have to get creative with the “prove [company] cannot pay” clause that’s required, especially if they’re big and wallowing in cash, 2) it costs roughly £3000 that you’ll only get back if you’re successful and 3) If you involve your own legal representation, that might cost extra that you definitely won’t get back.

For the first one, an incompetence argument might work. Or else that the fact they haven’t paid means that their assets, however large, cannot be made liquid enough to pay. For the second, that money comes back from the debtor if you win, so it costs them more money. For the third and for everything else, good luck with that.

Do you remember that episode of The Simpsons where Homer has his arm stuck in a drink vending machine and it becomes clear that he would have been free if only he’d let go of the soda can inside it? And everyone laughs at him?

Here we see “Homer” Putin with his army stuck in a war holding onto a Ukraine. He even has the same haircut. D’oh!

They have backups. Even if your old comments and posts stop resurrecting and permanently become invisible to the web, Reddit can do what they please with their backups, including selling them to AI companies. It stops the scrapers, sure, but then Reddit wants the scrapers to stop as well.

GDPR removal requests are worth a try, but they technically only cover personally identifying information, so you’d have to make a strong case that your comments in whole or in part could be tied back to your real self. And they could get around most of the edge cases there if they were to anonymise that information further, such as by disconnecting each of your comments from any commonality.

This is part of the reason I never bothered to delete anything over there. No point closing that stable door. Those horses are long gone.

The given reason is that it enables gambling. Presumably they’ll also be banning the other sports and games that are mentioned in the article, including those deeply beloved of whoever it is setting these rules.

If not, we can safely assume that the ban is probably because it’s something that might get the ordinary folk thinking for themselves, and that won’t do. Can’t be having the proles thinking for themselves, let alone practising an approximation of military strategy.

Alternatively, the top brass can’t get their heads around chess and they’re jealous that other people can, so therefore they ban it. (For this one, I cite myself. I’m so bad at chess that I can lose any game from a winning position by playing the moves I genuinely think are best, so I’m kind of jealous of anyone without this amazing anti-power. That doesn’t necessarily mean I’d ban it, but if I was running a country, maybe that’d go to my head and I would.)

I would have worded this differently, but you’re right in that it’s probably a good idea not to give anyone an extra excuse.

“Oh but we had to” isn’t a great excuse, but it is one, and if you take away the threat, it takes it away that argument.

“Reasonable”, unfortunately, is subjective. Just ask Rupert Murdoch.

Religious conservative nuts feel the same way about people who are in favour of abortion as many people in the US feel about health insurance CEOs.

From certain standpoints, assassinations appear acceptable.

I feel like this is comparing (bad) apples with (bad) oranges. Yes, Reddit has always sucked, but the way in which it sucked has changed.

They got rid of the bad apples, but then they carried through with that momentum and managed to turn everything else bad in an entirely new way.

If the world can be pulled back from the brink of the existing skirmishes, then what’s happening right now won’t get the WWIII label

Every government is uncomfortable. News stories about “defence” spending are commonplace.

WWIII has already begun. The only questions now are how many will die and who will be the victors.

I would like to be wrong. If the world can be pulled back from the brink of the existing skirmishes, then what’s happening right now won’t get the WWIII label, but we sure have a lot of hard-headed megalomaniacs running world-affecting countries these days, don’t we? That’s never a good sign.

Sounds like a “pester the devs” kind of deal if it’s an open-source project. It’d be a matter of them calling isatty(3) and a few extra if statements.

As for Perl, s/\e\[[0-9;]*[a-z]//gi would be my first attempt to get rid of them. You’ve probably been through all this already though.

Technical waffle:

The aforementioned regex/substitution would also delete malformed things like \e[;;;q, but since the offending supplier of codes is probably only generating valid codes, that shouldn’t matter much. There are also rarer escape sequences that it doesn’t catch, which would be where those better third party tools come in.

Come to think of it, there’d be a regex that detects everything laid out in the control_codes(4) man page (and, importantly, nothing that isn’t). It would be one of those terrifying write-only things like the one that validates the full e-mail address standard, but that only proves that such things are possible.

I’m almost tempted to have a go at creating it. Almost. Maybe another day.

Curious as to what those programs were. Most well-behaved programs can detect they’re outputting to a pipe, for example, and will drop the terminal escape codes. That is, pushing the output through something like cat ought to have caused those codes to not be generated in the first place.

Those same programs often have an option to generate the codes regardless, but that shouldn’t be the default.

An example here being the versions of ls that have the --color=auto option, which behaves the pipe-detecting way, and --color=force to send the escapes anyway. Of course, giving no --color option at all also avoids the escape codes, but many distros automatically set users up with an alias for ls that contains it, and the auto sub-option is precisely so users (and distro makers) can have ls act nicely.

Of course, the thing you were having trouble with might not have been a well-behaved program, which is why I’m curious.