"She will not be present at her brother's wedding." Actions have consequences.
Just Stop Oil
- Thread starter Port Vale Devil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
"She will not be present at her brother's wedding." Actions have consequences.
Basically any production code in any somehow respectable company is massively tested. Unit testing, static analysis testing, read by other programmers and tested by testers. There is more time spent in testing than writing the code in the first place.
But, there is just so much stuff that can go wrong that the rule of thumb is that ‘there is no bug-free code’. That’s why occasionally you see this types of gigantic system failures. It can be just a tiny variable in some line out of a million line codebase that ruins things. If directors need to be jailed for every bug done by programmers, let’s say that the director profession would go extinct.
Also, this whole thing was a 1/10000000 edge case.
The checksum for driver compatiability on Windows Kernel actually was correct.
So Windows allowed the deploy for a driver that negatively side effect memory problems because it actually passed the Windows driver compatiability checks.
Exactly, which is why I emphasised the staggered roll out. Had they done that and such severe problems had started to be reported, then they'd have been able to stop the roll out while they fix the problem.
Not doing so was a choice with pretty severe consequences. In no way am I saying that directors should be jailed for every bug in software. That would be ridiculous. On the other hand, where they are taking massive unnecessary risks to save money and things go wrong, why should they not face the same type of punishment the non director class would?
But you persuade governments BY persuading the people (voters).
OK I will go out and protest about the possibility "all of this ceasing to exist one day" Down with that sort of thing.
Climate change is a tangible man made disaster that is happening right now and could be tackled if government's world wide actually grasped the problem rather than arguing and kicking the can down the road to make it someone else's problem. "All of this ceasing to exist" on the other hand, is just a weird flex on your part.
Blocking roads and making life miserable for the average Joe is not the solution to that problem.
I was comparing the relative consequence for the disruption caused by their actions.
We are heading down a road where 'protest' is allowed only of its utterly sterile.
You see it now with complaints from MPs about 'intimidation' when in some cases it's somebody shouting across the road at a candidate..
You missed the BT feck up.
OFCOM found that BT had massively failed in its planning and human error involved could've been mitigated. Which is why it got a massive fine.
Ok so you’re moving from one argument to another.
Civil disobedience has often been the solution to getting government change.
Look I get it, you don’t like Just Stop Oil. That’s fine, but rather than just sit there pointing out what you don’t like about them, why not have a think about what could be done to change the course of climate change. If you don’t like their tactics what would you suggest? Because if we carry on as we are, you’ll be just as fecked as the rest of us.
Nah, that’s too much. Instead, we should all act like insufferable wankers being all ‘look at me, look at me’.
Saying that, as much as I find these wankers pathetic, I feel that 5 years in jail for that is a bit too much. But to be fair, they got what they wanted, they’ll pretend that they are now martyrs and be all happy. Probably will do something similar a week after being released.
Deliberate action vs unintended consequence.
They could have easily won the case and got much lighter sentence had they used a proper law firm. Their intention was to get hammered for PR.
They will smash it on appeal.
See above.
The main drive would be the number of people protesting, not that it’s disruption by definition. For some reason you’ve convinced yourself that it’s the level of disruption that defines the likelyhood of success, but it’s not.
What are you talking about? Have you missed the millions protesting for change in environmental policy all over the globe?
Dont be childish. Worldwide numbers arent going to have much of an effect on the decisions that individual countries make, not until those worldwide numbers result in significant number of people protesting in said countries and/or they force EU led changes. The same EU that is worried about energy supplies
What are you talking about? Have you missed the millions protesting for change in environmental policy in the uk?
I dunno if it's millions, but there have been a lot of very large environmental protests in the UK.
Protests only really work if a large % of the population approve of what you're doing even if they don't personally take part, not the case with JSO
Hope it won't discourage them. Their goals are extremely justified. With a bit of luck more people eventually wake up before the world's fecked.
this is complete nonsense
Using wiki, since you posted it, there seem to have been modern protests since Earth First in 1991. You won't convince me millions of people haven't taken part in environmental protests in the uk.
Public opinion was against the suffragettes when they were blowing stuff up. That's why to this day women can't vote.
And we're better for it. Women suck.
I thought that was the problem, often they don't
My top G!
That was a 100+ years ago, times have changed
They do until you put a ring on their finger...I thought that was the problem, often they don't
Wait I'm Ben Shapiroing myself here.
I just wanted to contradict what you said, and I think I did pretty well.
Says more about you than it does me
Agreed.
MLK always gets brought into these arguments despite not even being remotely comparable.
MLK fought against racial oppression using the only tactics available or possible to do so. He fought to give people rights and freedoms that they did not have. Something that there was literally no reason they shouldn't have. He was also fully aware the state and laws of his country would try to persecute him for it, which was kind of the whole point of the need to do it. He wasn't trying to affect political change via a popularity contest. He was effectively fighting a war. Not protesting within a political and free system that gave him the right to do so.
He definitely wouldn't have laid on the M25 just to annoy as many people as possible because he wants oil to stop.
Its extremely disingenuous, nonsensicle and frankly insulting to compare him to Just Stop Oil. Please stop doing it.
On the point of the thread. The point of a protest is to affect a positive change. The only change these protests will affect (and we had this same debate on here years ago) is annoying and uniting enough people against them to allow the then Tory government to clamp down on protests. This is not a positive change at all. It is a very negative one that will have an impact on other protests going forwards, and even after this is exactly what has ended up happening, people are still too dumb to see it, and want to double down on the injustice of it all. Once you realise you're digging a hole rather than getting nearer to where you want to go, it is time to stop digging.
I couldn't get my girlfriend's mum to St Barts for an emergency check up due to these protests. She had to get on the train and a packed underground while covid was still very much a thing. despite the fact she has no immunity system and catching a cold or covid would probably have killed her. She ended up needing a blood transfusion and could have ended up dying due to Just Stop Oil. Ambulances, fire service etc. couldn't get to emergencies within our area because the M25 junction being blocked also gridlocks every approach road and half of the borough. The judge has barely scratched the surface with his summary. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that randomly attacking everyone is not a clever way to drum up any kind of political or general support for your cause? Particularly when no one can even really explain what they would realistically do about it.
The whole attitude you get from these people which is always with us or against us/anyone who isn't supportive must be some kind of snob, is completely embarrassing. Mostly it is just people who have been inconvenienced for no reason or who can't understand what the point or end goal of it is.
I think invoking MLK or indeed any well known protest leader is highly relevant. We are still dreaming walking into a global ecological disaster and the timescale of change really matters. So non-violent protest has to be better than nothing.
We are all doing far too little although depressingly I'm not sure anything will make most people and governments do what is needed.
We are a wildly authoritarian country and it's only gonna get worse.
The kids (and their grandparents from the looks of it) are alright.
The kids (and their grandparents from the looks of it) are alright.
Last edited:
We'll look back at these arrests in a somewhat similar fashion to civil rights activists getting locked up
Why is this so "Authoritarian?"
Criminal Damage carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, based on the value of the object.
Category A B or C dependent on intention.
This was clearly A as part of the definition is "highly planned".
Furthermore, around £10,000 of damage to a gold plated frame was done.
2 years and 20 months is light based on the textbook definition of this crime.
Let me ask, had this just been a guy who tried to vandalize a Van Gogh painting without political intent, would you be happy with the outcome?
Criminal Damage carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, based on the value of the object.
Category A B or C dependent on intention.
This was clearly A as part of the definition is "highly planned".
Furthermore, around £10,000 of damage to a gold plated frame was done.
2 years and 20 months is light based on the textbook definition of this crime.
Let me ask, had this just been a guy who tried to vandalize a Van Gogh painting without political intent, would you be happy with the outcome?
I don't think some damage to a fancy frame deserves these insane sentences, no.
But you seem to judge Britain being Authoritarian based on the fact that these were "activists" who were jailed, when the reality is purposeful criminal damage has ALWAYS been given harsh sentencing.
It's not about what you deem to be a useless object, it's based on the value of the damage.
If the gallery was able to prove the "fancy frame" cost X money, the charge will be reflected on that, regardless of what that object is nor the intention of the person doing the damage.
The sentencing is also, under law, based on the potential damage. Given the painting is worth £100 million, the potential damage was very high.