gian

Only real option is to crypt them before putting them on the VPS, but at this point a VPS is pretty useless.

Almost 500 million users market.

I know. I was only pointing out that you can have a waterproof phone and a replaceable battery. Obviously you need to do better than the S5 but it is nothing impossible, even wanting to keep the audio jack and the USB ports.

The two features are not mutually esclusive. I owned an S5 which was waterproof and had replaceable battery more than 10 years ago. It did not seems too hard to do

It is not that simple.
For hardware attacks, older hardware are probably safe since the attacks are specifics to some newer features. I really doubt you can deliver a Spectre attack on anything up until the Pentium or even later.
On the software side, there could be some security bugs to which some older version could be vulnerable since there were not the vulnerable code at the time. Granted, there could be some security bugs that were not yet discovered in older codebase.

I would love to know how you would decide if the scan or copy of my ID, with picture, I send you by mail, or upload with a web form as a jpeg, is real or a fake.

Maybe you are right but the actual facts are that even outside OF there are underage female prostitutes that do it for money or the latest bag from some high end brand and often are prey of some predator. Only difference is that off-line prostitution is harder to find.
OF is only folowing what it is happening in the real life, making it easier obviously, but it don’t create any new dynamic.

Wait a moment, maybe I understand wrong (English is not my first language) but I understand that you said that the Great Filter is the reason why we don’t see them and point out 3 possible points.

I dispute your first point to be not really an explanation or an option since saying “never feasible for any civ, no matter how advanced” just seems to be a too harsh limit on what a civ could do, which looking at our past history seems an unreasonable limit.

My friend, that’s exactly my point. That is, they’ve had enough time to show up but they are nowhere to be seen.

Your point seems to be that since there is the Great Filter (btw, to be proven) then there is no one else out there.
You exclude way simpler possibillities like the option that a civ just a couple centuries ahead of use could already be colonizating the nearby stars, they just are 1000 LY away so we cannot yet see them (assuming we even know what to look for).

1. interstellar travel is never feasible for any civ, no matter how advanced,

I like the idea behind the concept of the Great Filter, but that point does not seems logic as it would imply that irregardless of how advanced a civ is, they would not be able to build anything that can even make just a one way travel to a star just a few year light far away. Right, it is not simple, but a civ even just a couple centuries head of us should be able to do it.

Also, probably nobody capable of traveling the stars wants to settle a planet. Once you figure out how to make huge spaceships (which you’ll need to travel interstellar space) you’ve essentially learned how to make cities in space.

I don’t think it is a valid point. Yeah, if we can build a ship that take us to Alpha Centauri it would lool like a small city, but that does not mean that it can last forever and the traveller would never need to settle on a planet. And looking what the humans did in the past, it seems logic that while a part would want to continue to explore, another part would want to settle on a planet.

Our solar system would support a lot of people if we just used the resources available for space habitats, and by “lot” I mean in the quadrillions. And it turns out that all you need to support that population is a star to provide energy, and some planets to source materials from.

So with that in mind, why bother finding another habitable planet?

Because it is habitable and can be used as a transit point, advanced outpost, refuelling base or any other use you can do of an habitable planet where to do things you have not to fight even with the environment (tourism for example).

If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?

For rent because, depending on the laws, it can be really hard to get it back in case there is a tenant that do not pay or refuse to leave. In many italian cities there were many houses (they talk about 1/3 of the houses in Milano) that were empty because it was too dangerous to rent them (damages, missing payments, evictions which take years, people that refuse to leave even after the end of the contract). The same reasons make way harder to sell a rented house. So all (or most) of these house went to the short rent market (AirBnB and the likes).

For sale because the owner could keep it in case he need some extra money down the road or his son would need it some years from now or any other reason.

What else is there for the owners to do with them?

Nothing, which is better than to have to (eventually) fight to get the house back from a bad tenants, with all the time and money involved.

I see the point of what Barcellona (and other cities) want to do but the raise of short rents are a consequence, not the cause. True, renting on AirBnB make me more money than a normal rent contract but what people do not understand it that this system would have worked even if it would make me less money than a normal rent because 1) I would be sure to be paid, 2) I would be sure that the tenants would leave at the end of the rent, 3) where would be some sort of (partial) compensation in case of damages and 4) if I ever decide that I now need the house I just need to stop listing on the site and I have the house back.

This thread is about the UK, not Italy.

I know. What I mean is that I would not be so sure that what people say they will vote will be what they actually vote.
In Italy many people told they would never vote for Berlusconi but somehow he won the elections. Same with Trump, the poll gave him losing yet he won.

The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.

However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.

You sentence is the exact reason why people are going to vote for the right wings.
The only people talking about fascism in Italy is the left wing. At the last EU election the points of the left were that the fascism must not win and that their secretary is a multigender woman. Not a word about the actual problems we have (for example, that people have seen their purchasing power drop by a considerable amount, a couple that want to build a family must relay on their parents to be able to buy an house and even more if they decide to have a child, lines at soup kitchens get longer and longer and so on).

But yes, we are going off-topic. My bad.

but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.

Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic

Not sure about that, honestly, at leasto from what I see in Italy.

True but they basically cut how many people could stay in Barcellona, not how many people could go to Barcellona.
So what will happen, in my opinion, is that people will continue to go to Barcellona, staying in the surroundings to sleep.

So both of the problems they want to solve will be not solved: they will continue to have over-tourism and the houses will not go on the market so the prices will not lower.

Keep in mind 2 nations within the UK didn’t want to leave along with a large chunk of the other two.

Irrelevant. It is like saying the Lombardia and Veneto do not agree with what Italian government decide: it could be true but they cannot do whatever they want, they are part of Italy.

While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.

On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.

Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.

True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).

But in the end I think that the main problem is that both parts lost the contact with the normal people but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.

Everything. And nothing and all.

There is not a single thing the conservatives are completly right about and the progressives are completely wrong (or vice-versa of course), so I cannot truly pinpoint something specific.

Fast forward to 2028: “why tourists do not come here anymore ? We are loosing money here.”

The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.

I see what you are saying, but I don’t think you are completly right. Re-join can takes years and it will be under the EU rules, not UK, so no more special treatment like before. That alone is difficult to sell to UK, but I am not sure that if UK re-join people will vote again to exit, given that Brexit was sold with lies that was already exposed.

There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.

Disagree. A good government is a balance of progressivism and conservatism. Real life it is not black or white but a shade of grey (for the most part).

Is Brexit an ignorant, lazy, myopic tantrum you can undo?

No, you can only ask to join again, then start the discussion and if everyone agree, join again. But this time it will be on EU terms, not UK terms.
And the process can take years.