Mediterraneo10

Again, the whole point of UnHerd is that it includes people from a range of ideological outlooks, who ordinarily would be opposed to one another, because they share some concerns and can forge a common cause in publishing.

None of the headlines that you cite are specific to “extremist Christian-right propaganda”, indeed these are themes are commonly discussed by those who identify as leftist and unreligious, but feel that certain things that are presently insisted on in leftism as de rigeur, are not part of the leftist tradition they recognize from a few decades back. For example, with regard to being “anti-trans”, there are a lot of soixante-huitards who find the current focus on trans activism on the left excessive and even problematic, because it was utterly foreign to their struggle against rightist forces.

You have still not brought forth any proof of your claim above that UnHerd was founded and funded expressly for “extremist Christian-right propaganda” purposes. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to back up that claim, or retract it.

Can you cite that UnHerd was founded by and funded by “extremist Christian-right propaganda” forces? Considering that its executive editor has frequently featured commentators who are downright anti-religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), and various commentators who subscribe to old-school 20th-century leftism including its antipathy to religion, that is a claim hard to believe.

Indeed, Ulysses is accessible to anyone with a well-rounded humanities education, even some particularly bookish high-school students. Sure, you might not get every single reference, but the story is plain.

Arguably the most challenging element for readers is not Joyce’s heavy erudition in drawing on the classical canon. Rather, it is some of the Irish politics in the early 20th century that will baffle most readers outside Ireland (and probably most readers inside Ireland, the colonial era being so far away now).

There has been speculation that in a future Android version, Google will extend features of its Advanced Protection program to all devices. One of those is that sideloading of APKs will no longer be possible unless you do it over the command line via ADB. Only a tiny percentage of the population, techies like us, would be comfortable doing that. So, "you can still sideload" might not be a thing for long.

The concept of policing by consent arose in a city which, at that time in the 19th century, was not riven by racial conflict. To claim that it is an argument for segregation is ahistorical. Self-determination maybe, but the concept was originally put forward in order to improve outcomes, not for the political liberation of the local people per se.

It is true that even among minorities support for the existence of an active police force remains high. However, the principles of policing by consent still hold: a community deserves to be policed by police it recognizes as members of that community, not outsiders, and which have the community's best interests at heart. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US regarding these things.

Maybe ex-combat military, but the vast majority of military never see combat.

Don't expect your bank app and other common non-FOSS apps to ever work on Anbox. The problem is that more and more Android apps are requiring the device to pass SafetyNet. Not only will Anbox not pass SafetyNet, but even de-Googled Android ROMs like LineageOS have generally lost this war.

Generally supporters of FOSS phones who have to run an Android bank app or their country’s official ID app which is SafetyNet and Play Services-dependent, are encouraged to simply get a cheap Android phone for those limited purposes. Not to expect the PinePhone or Librem to run such apps.

Signal on the Librem 5/PinePhone is already usable through one client (Axolotl), with possibly more clients on the way – the Signal devs still don’t publicly endorse third-party clients, but they have softened their stance and even quietly helped some other projects. So, a working Anbox isn’t seen as a must-have for Signal.

There is a strand of feminism that holds that women should have the right to work as sex workers, because women should have their own agency, yet at the same time men should at least be shamed – if not prosecuted – for recourse to sex workers. In this view, men’s use of sex workers is objectifying the female body, and on a societal scale that is not so straightforwardly a "victimless crime".

In the modern era, libertarianism quickly breaks down when certain demographics feel grievances.

HK depends on the mainland for water and in fact has for decades, even during the era of British rule. That is one reason independence has simply never been an option.

I would suggest that it is a slur because it is used as a term of disparagement that often doesn't even accurately describe the target. The label gets thrown at women who are not RF, and sometimes women who, for whatever reason (for example, a religion they adhere to) would be reluctant to even call themselves F. At that point, I don't see how the word is any different than people e.g. referring to any Arabs as "camel jockeys".

Why do you think the taxes are inevitable? Not only are short-haul flights in Eastern Europe not heavily taxed, the building and running of the airports has been heavily subsidized. It has more than paid for itself by bringing tourism income to the region, and encouraging the diaspora to regularly revisit and spend the money they have earned abroad.

It is common to hear a transwoman claim (indeed, even occasionally here on HN) that anything other than recognizing them as equal to ciswomen is an act of violence and prejudice against them, and at worst, they utter some invective about “TERFs”. So, suggesting the recognition of a new gender is unlikely to satisfy at least those strident individuals.