Only vaguely conscious of this guy from my nice safe seat abroad but IIRC he wasn’t exactly “establishment” in the first place? He can’t have that many friendly colleagues after basically completely changing his policies once in office. Never mind the reputed reason for that happening.
Quite the opposite, my workplace is pretty fun and we definitely don’t need to couch jokes in emoticons for safety. Maybe this is the same thing that requires people these days to use sarcasm tags.
Please don’t wink in a work context
The point is that no branch was ever called a slave branch, just as no audio copy was ever called a slave copy. One does not direct the other in the same way that master and slave implies. Usually quite the opposite.
Oh and master-slave usually refers to hardware infrastructure, not programming. Where, as you mentioned, client-service is the equivalent, or parent and child.
Master in branch meant the same as the master of an audio track or video. We haven’t all stopped saying “remaster” or “masterpiece”.
As it turns out, there are software developers from outside the country with people whose grandparents-grandparents were chattel slaves, and they name things without the same baggage. It’s Gulf of America stuff, but for the ‘good guys’.
Level 35 Steel Armor (Female)
I can’t remember if it’s an official Asimov book or not, but one of the Foundation books set far beyond even the main series has an archaeological mission finding thousands of ceremonial hard white ceramic bowl-funnels and speculating on their significance to these incomprehensibly ancient peoples.
Unless there were earthworms in your ass, that’s not how parasitic worms work
Mambo No 5
It reads like regurgitating dehydrated phlegm
Edit:
Anyone want to state their opinion?
Germans: “Das is der inkorrect opinion Herr Irlandisch”
I’ve put hundreds or thousands of hours into every Civ game since Civ 2. I’m so fucking sad that I don’t care about this new release. I’m Irish and I can’t even enjoy Britain being relegated to DLC because somehow Ada Lovelace is a leader? Who is this game for?
No, not every purchase is taxed, and not every purchase that is is taxed at the same rate.
These rates are set by individual countries (because “Europe”, lol) and can change year to year. For example Ireland doesn’t tax books, basic food staples, children’s clothes, medicines. Heating fuel is taxed but was set to a reduced rate during the cost of living crisis. Other countries will have different priorities.
VAT ensures that even those who have a large amount of wealth accumulated without “income” also contribute to society.
I didn’t put any words in your mouth… I really don’t understand how you’re not getting that. I said you understand that it’s not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.
Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).
And that specifically is the part that I’m arguing has no basis in fact - you’re asking me to provide evidence that something wasn’t going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn’t help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.
I genuinely don’t know how you interpret “I’m sure you understand the difference” as “you actually believe this”. But sure, I’m manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn’t a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than “that’s what Catholics are like” despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
I’m not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I’m guess you’re ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with “that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it” vs “a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation”. For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
I’m not ignorant of history. I’m on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it’s path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming “Catholic” nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won’t you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England’s anti-Catholic biases as a “need to be a victim”.
The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK
There’s the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a “secular head of state”:
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power.
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don’t see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
trying to turn England into a theocracy.
Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Well someone cropped the part of this image where this maths experiment was inspired by trying to figure out how a small dinosaur died in a stranger crater.
That image is an outline of the fossil millions of years later, not a drawing of puke containing bones or a dinosaur getting instantly defleshed
How about if the idle animation is Gal Gadot in full IDF regalia singing “Imagine”?