WindyMiller

> I don't buy that argument. A UK citizen can still register .eu TLD through a company they control in the EU, if they have the resources to do so. The EU's decision to rescind registrations for former EU citizens only really affects non-wealthy private citizens. The wealthy, and large companies, can get around the rule.

Regrettably, this is true of most rules.

> But when it comes to internet's DNS system, people have lives and businesses that are contingent on maintining exclusive control of a given set of characters on a DNS server.

People had lives and businesses that were contingent on a great many things that were lost to Brexit.

It seems like maybe you think of the TLD problem as a special case because it affected you so directly and significantly and is within your area of expertise. (I don't mean this as a criticism, it's completely normal and I've no doubt I would do the same.) But really I don't think it's particularly different from all of the other administrative problems that Brexit created.

I think it's perfectly reasonable not to offer the UK special treatment over other nations. It would certainly have been more generous to allow UK registrants to retain their domains, but it doesn't seem to me more reasonable. The EU's responsibility is to its members, and they negotiated the withdrawal agreement accordingly.

The UK could, of course, have made access to the .eu TLD a higher priority when negotiating the withdrawal agreement. I expect we could have secured it. I don't see any reason to believe that the EU witheld it unreasonably.

I don't think it's mud-slinging to point out that the EU didn't kick us out!

If this happened because you're in the UK, it's not the EU's fault we left and you're blaming the wrong people.

> If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic.

Or if auto traffic fails to yield/stop appropriately to you.

Of course it's almost always the case that dangerously-designed roads only cause accidents when someone does something wrong. A one-track road with blind bends and no speed limit is perfectly safe if people use it safely.

Personally I think women are people.

I don't think 'people' is really an edge case.

Don't worry, I get it. I just think it's a bit daft that the title is now so thoroughly associated with a fairly mechanical part of how the film functions, when it's not only a pre-existing word but also refers to a much more significant idea within the film itself. Plus, the 'rick' of 'brick' sounds a bit like the 'rec' of 'recursion'.

But I think I was a bit harsh in this case, the way the two parts of the game interact is more reminiscent of the dream layers in the film than is often the case with such Inception references.

Wildly annoying that this isn't called 'Brickursion'.

Those UK limits are for what is considered legal tender—that is, if someone has offered you 20 pennies to settle a 20p debt, you can't sue them for non-payment, but if they offered you 200 pennies to settle a £2 debt then you could.

It's more a matter of precision than offence. Trans men who give birth aside, there are lots of mothers who didn't give birth (adoptive mothers; lesbians whose partners give birth). 'Mothers' simply isn't the same category as 'people who have given birth'.

Plus, if what you're talking about is the experience of pregnancy and giving birth, then it makes sense to focus on that, rather than on the much wider experience of motherhood.

To me, it's more confusing that some people insist on using less precise terms because they find the idea of inclusivity offensive.

Don't forget to include the health benefits when weighing up risks! More chance of being flattened by an SUV now, less chance of a stroke/heart attack later.

It does say 'in the United States'. And it doesn't say that any of these are unique to that culture.

Fair enough. I think a lot of these concerns are based on misrememberings and misunderstandings. I think it would have been helpful to mention when you posted the link that you had misremembered it, though.

But this doesn't say what you said, and isn't a "racial sensitivity guide" for employees.

If there's one thing academics at British universities are more scornful of than third parties trying to dictate their curriculum, it's parents of students sticking their noses in.

> The QAA themselves don’t explain what decolonising means.

Presumably this is a good thing, given the complaint:

> But by requiring that all subject areas include these topics, the QAA is homogenising university teaching and diminishing true diversity of thought.

The 'sinister attempt' here is literally just advice to have a bit of a think about this stuff when you're covering areas where it might be relevant, like the history of mathematics; and to consider the diverse needs of your students. An academic who chooses to follow that recommendation has huge scope to determine how they do so.

The rest is just baggage Armstrong is bringing to it, and is very much his problem.