Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you’re aim is to carve up territory then you don’t give a potential long term adversary access to half a billion people.

Move fast, break things, leave the front door unlocked, salute the führer

It still grew 39%, that’s crazy growth. Their users do not care.

Salt City

Finally get the Futurama reference now👍

Thanks, I’m very keen not to pull it up as it’s herringboned and took a very long time to lay.

We asked the kitchen fitter to level the floor, but turned out he didn’t really know what he was doing so we ended up with an uneven floor in the other direction. Not used him again…

Probably so people don’t take the piss with the legal fees if they’re confident of winning. See the Colette Rooney vs Rebecca Vardey case for example.

We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything

It retcons the nuking of shady sands by 14-15 years, so undermines the entire fallout universe they are faithful to. What a boring hill to die on

Guess he won’t be eating his own tomato puree then

Got anything for DIY, plumbing/carpentry etc… please?

The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.

2. Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.

3. Luxuries are of no significance is not obviously true. Our economic system means that purchasing items of “no moral significance” feeds into a system which supports livelihoods and, in a functional government, provides welfare and health care to populations.

4. There are multiple areas where money could be focused instead of Oxfam etc which could be seen as moral- R&D, luxuries as per 3

(It might just be that I don’t like philosophy)