You're missing the point/s

1. What they're doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
2. What they're doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
3. Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn't be able to help themselves to users local data, and it's something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
4. This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a "dead end", it's the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.

It's so tiring though. Giving a fuck about everything all the time, for years and years. I never understood how people could be apathetic in the face of such injustice. But now I'm living it and I'm starting to sympathise.

If you read carefully, you will notice that the commenter used the past tense: "had" = simple past tense of the verb "to have".

I love this idea!

• "Kirk, marooned by Khan" - anger in the face of cruelty

• "Montgomery in the presence of whales" - wonderment at majestic beauty

• "Pine, his visions" - a sense of foreboding doom

• "Locutus, released" - rocky recovery after a severe illness

• "Riker's trombone" - an instrument or tool, improperly used

• "Spock, untethered" - when you've been biting your lip for a long time but finally snap

• "Tuvok, his eyebrow raised" - restraint

• "Odo, when the Great Link was sick " - making a sacrifice for the good of the many, especially if they are your enemies

I could literally do this all day but have to get back to work

Only

The chemical makeup of the two liquids is different for a start, so you're wrong in saying that.

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

~Ford Prefect

I am answering you. The guy you asked a question to was talking about something that had happened in the past. You then asked a question as though you'd misread it and thought he was saying that it was still happening. He didn't say that, so your question is already answered.

Not op but surely it's acute embarrassment tinged with apprehension, verging on fear. With a bit of exasperation mixed in. It's a hell of a complex emotion to fit into four words.

Same. I've got thousands of hours in Skyrim. It's my favourite game of all time. But I'm more into sci fi than fantasy generally and Starfield is shaping up to be everything I would've asked for. It's taken over my life and I have no regrets. Bethesda smashed it again.

Watch it. Builder's tea is the literal backbone of the British economy.

Oh, wait.

The Mighty Boosh S2E5.

Get on it.

You forgot "fully automatic"

"Common sense is just the set of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."

~Albert Einstein

If you think about it, looking for life that's very similar to us is the exact opposite of presuming we are special. It's presuming we are average.

Also, when a mummy user and a daddy user love each other very much, they go into a special private online matchmaking lobby and make little baby users.

Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.

1. This is no longer a justified conflict. A state has the right to self defence in a limited way. The right to self defence does not override the rules on collective punishment. The right to self defence does not include the right to invade a state where the enemy is a terrorist group within that state, rather than the state itself. The right to self defence does not override the rules on attacking civilian infrastructure (especially ambulances) even where there is suspicion that a terrorist organisation may be using it. The right to self defence does not override the rules on forcible relocation or blockade. In short, the response to an enemy using a human shield must not be to eliminate the shield. It's astounding that so many people seem to need this explained to them. This is borne out by international law, cf. the UN charters.
2. Israel did not do everything they could do to avoid this conflict. The one thing they had to do was to abide by the Oslo accords, yet they have built settlements in Palestine every single day since signing, and restricted Gazans every single day since signing. The two state solution has failed as a result of Israel's actions. In terms of actions since October 7th, the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes. The reasons are obvious, I hope. The only way to get those hostages back is either by freeing them in covert ops or by negotiation at a political level. Destroying entire city blocks from the air will not get the hostages back, as we all know.
3. The label genocide is not misconstrued, according to the UN genocide experts. Some say there is a grave risk that this is a genocide, based on the available facts, and some say that it already fulfills the criteria.
   I can provide sources for all of my claims, if you'd prefer not to do the legwork yourself.

Isn't Israel quite happy to keep Israel and Judaism undifferentiated, though? They seem happy to conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, and even any criticism of the state of Israel, or support of Palestine as anti-semitism. With such broad and frankly ridiculous definitions, I'm not surprised to see a rise in so-called anti-semitism.

I wouldn't be surprised if hateful people did take delight in the genocide Israel is perpetrating, but I don't see it. And criticising genocidal actions doesn't require hatred for the perpetrators in order to be valid. Anti-semites were clear to lambast Israel at any point in the past 100 or so years, even more so now. And so were normal people.

I hope you're right. The opposition haven't indicated they're going to rescind anything yet. They've shuttled so far to the right in the last three years in a successful effort to woo the disillusioned "centrists" that it's really hard to get a grip on where they stand ideologically. All that can be said is they will do anything and say anything if they think it will get them more votes, and they won't commit to anything which might upset the centrists.

The benefit cap is right wing.
Banning your MPs from joining picket lines is right wing.
Purging the left wing from your party -but leaving the right wing untouched- iis right wing.
You can only call Starmer centrist if your view is one from a right wing perspective.
The Overton window in the UK is too far to the right, as is our policy on almost every area. We need a strong push to the left to take us back to the centre, not a slightly watered down, more palatable version of Thatcherism.