The British establishment has so clearly colluded to make sure we’re given no quarter to advocate for ourselves. We’re depicted, we’re demonised, we’re allowed to watch from the sidelines as two panels of cis people discuss with deceptive civility how to solve the problem that is our inclusion in society on their comfy news sofa - but if we take any action they can’t spin into rationale for retaliation it’s allowed to die in the wind.

We protest non-violently, it’s seldom covered by our media. We respond to poorly informed reports whose conclusions about our healthcare implemented would lead many of us to despair, we’re dismissed as biased. We organise one of the largest in-person parliament lobbying events in living memory, the domestic media leaves it for international outlets to report on.

But if we protest and leave a sticker reflecting our discontent? Trans vandalism, these sick people should just debate us. We speak too harshly against the people working incrementally towards our excision from society? Trans threats, these people are dangerous. We do a little bit of property damage so that literally anyone will pay attention? Trans criminality, maybe we need to bring the hammer down on them.

Meanwhile public healthcare for trans adults is a Kafkaesque endeavour in waiting lists which stretch on for years if not decades. Healthcare for trans youth is incrementally snuffed out entirely, and the data showing the rise in suicidality and self-harm consequent of that decision is suppressed. Trans people are quietly discriminated against such that many of us live in poverty, and despite that we’re disproportionate victims of violence and abuse support is often inaccessible to us.

We’re not going quietly into the night. We take actions to try and ensure that no member of our community goes without healthcare, we share resources to help each other avoid poverty, we offer each other support where nobody else will - but we won’t lie back and accept the barbarity of society’s reaction to us.

Intensifying action in response is a consequence of the fact that we’ve been given no air to speak, a consequence of the fact that despite our peaceful protestations and attempts at civil debate the assault on our participation in society at large is eroded away at further, a consequence of that we’re given no other options.

It’s only going to get more radical out there until society realises that we won’t accept decisions made about us without us.

Is this that shocking? Ocasio-Cortez seems to be the only politician left of tired milquetoast liberalism with both the public profile to sustain a campaign and demographic profile amicable to the position.

It’s so bleak watching entire demographics of people being more-or-less openly categorised as expendable. Alerts intended to spur action in response to an impending disaster should be available to as many people as possible.

Even a selectin of generic translations with a time inserted would be better than this, and it’s heartwrenching that they’re not even willing to put that tiny amount of effort in.

It’s an effective two-party system with unfair weighting utterly colonised by some of the most well-invested in propaganda efforts in the world.

People who report that they’re Republicans very frequently flit wildly on whether the country’s on a good economic trajectory based on whether Republicans are empowered, seemingly completely independent of any other metric.

I guess that’s what happens when you’re rich enough to spend your life surrounded by sycophantic yes men who’ll lap whatever you say up for proximity to money and influence.

Man has insulated himself from ever experiencing the sincere social cues you need to develop and refine your communication skills.

It’s honestly so wild that these types thought Trump had some cohesive master plan that would all gel together nicely.

Like he told you the whole time that tariffs was basically his whole plan on the economy, and you thought there might be something more to it? From the guy who can barely complete a sentence? Be for real.

Yes, but sometimes producing for the public domain is their job. Sponsorships, grants, and other funding instruments exist for people who do work which is committed to the public domain.

Provided that you’re not throwing the excess out, it’s not too bad? They’re reusable but they do wear out eventually, and when that happens you can just draw from the backlog.

Alternatively you can always use them for other things - I don’t keep 37 of them, but the handful I have I’m always using for stuff which isn’t just groceries.

Not necessarily? You’d retain first-to-market advantages, particularly where implementation is capital-heavy - and if that’s not enough you could consider an alternative approach to rewarding innovation such as having a payout or other advantage for individuals or entities which undertake significant research and development to emerge with an innovative product.

I think the idea that nobody would commit to developing anything in the absence of intellectual property law is also maybe a bit too cynical? People regularly do invest resources into developing things for the public domain.

At the very least, innovations developed with a significant amount of public funding - such as those which emerge from research universities with public funding or collaborative public-private endeavours at e.g. pharmaceutical companies - should be placed into the public domain for everybody to benefit from, and the copyright period should be substantially reduced to something more like five years.

The bill says that commercial entities serving pornography are required to do age verification through either verifying a driver’s license, verifying another piece of government-issued identification, or through the use of any commercially viable age verification mechanism.

So, yeah, I’d imagine compliance to look like either uploading a photograph or scan of an identity card or document for the site operators to check, or uploading it to an affiliated service which does age verification on their behalf.

Which is obviously horrendous from a privacy and information security standpoint for the consumer, and exposes the site operator to costs and legal risk associated with verifying and storing sensitive personal information.