To be honest, we already pitied them for the food and weather.

I think you've got a bit of a strawman going here Those who complain about the environmental impacts of AI almost invariably complain about flights and beef as well

Is that even possible?

Two devices? More engagement! Bonus time!

Can i prove it’s a majority, probably not and it seems like a lot of effort so I’m not going to, but I’ll wait while you provide the majority of examples proving incompetence over malice. What's an area where something can be done maliciously or by accident? Car crashes? Workplace injury? Incorrect tax claims? Taking something from a shop? All of these are, to my understanding (and with decreasing confidence, but all have evidence - crime stats for the first, to, HMRC estimates and this Ipsos poll respectively) more likely to be accidental than malicious. To me this is a general principle: human beings are social animals and have an instinct to be agreeable and cooperative, to live within socially-agreed rules, to tell the truth and not to fuck people over. Those who break the rules are the exception - otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to have rules and to have society. So my background assumption is that people are honest. Seeing examples of people being dishonest doesn't really change this background assumption much, because the nature of being in a society is that we point out and emphasise the times when people don't abide by its rules; we have to use more robust methods to estimate its prevalance. You yourself mentioned corruption, and again the kickbacks and favours are well established. Kickbacks to politicians in the UK are comparatively tiny though. Enough to motivate someone who's already a grifter, but not enough to cause anyone but the extraordinarily stupid to be motivated by getting them. You pushed back on this before but I genuinely think that the reason people think otherwise is because they just can't believe that (for example) Tories actually believe that the country would work better by spending less on public services and benefits. The only remaining explanation is kickbacks by the direct beneficiaries of these policies. Even if your logic isn't as formalised as that, I still think that on some level that is the feeling that makes you ready to believe that Tory politicians are so unlike the population at large - that is, massively more dishonest. Some politicians (like BoJo) have genuinely been caught lying with high confidence and high frequency, and so this baseline assumption doesn't apply to them. If state something is my opinion (or it’s clear that it is) then i should provide the information i can to show my working and how i came to that opinion, that gives others the opportunity to examine my reasoning and thought process and then perhaps question parts of it they disagree with. It's about confidence. People in this thread expressed with no hint of doubt that the politicians who wrote the legislation did it for kickbacks from big tech. This is in spite of the fact that they have no direct evidence of this and it's implausible on account of big tech being unhappy with this law. This isn't simply healthy skepticism, it's the same old useless cynicism. Politics is not the realm of headcanon I am legitimately unsure how you came to the conclusion that a discussion around politics (especially modern politics) has no room for the inclusion of the public opinion and perception of the politicians. The context was that you can't just air your personal fan-fiction about politicians' motivations and personal beliefs as if they were something more than that, so an excuse that "it's just an opinion" doesn't wash when the video linked by OP is putting this idea (that the law was written at the behest of big tech) forward seriously. By all means have your justified beliefs about politicians. But so far the only politician you've actually mentioned convincingly as being corrupt is Boris Johnson. You haven't, for example, leveled any attacks at Oliver Dowden who was the Minister for DCMS at the time of passing the Act. His register of interests does not mention any gifts or meetings with big tech firms.

One a lifetime membership is not a sustainable business model . Two people so not want to pay for stuff a small percentage might but the vast majority won't escpically when there is Chrome which is free. The problem is everyone wants shit got free or 99 cents one time payment for life time upgrades. These are not sustainable business models. Then we complain why are their ads or whatever, well do you work for free? People have to make enough to live.