TWeaK

The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can’t just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.

I say the case needed a statistician. Incredibly, the prosecution deliberately decided to avoid using one to assess questions like “How unusual is this shift pattern for a random nurse?” or “How likely was it that said nurse was personally drawn to caring for the sickest infants? How were shifts assigned?”

Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it’s not the prosecution’s job to prove her innocence, it’s her’s and her solicitor’s. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.

By definition, she was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

No mention of how he was always a massive Russophile, and how Dominic Cummings started out on the UK politics scene as his advisor after living in Russia.

This cunt was a key part in getting the UK out of Europe at the behest of Russia.

Again with the names. If you could acutally come up with something of actual meaning and relevance, I might feel insulted.

But you don’t have meaning, what you say is irrelevent, and you don’t have value. You say you don’t argue and yet you’ve replied every time, because there’s nothing else for you.

Applying a retaliatory tariff, as you suggest, is what would be appeasing Trump. He wants to wreck everything - not just the US - and retaliatory tariffs would do just that.

Thank fuck you don’t decide economic policy. I’d hate for a nation and its people to be in such a sorry state.

I’ve demonstrated a lot more thinking here than you. You’ve presented nothing, you’re just attempting to be insulting. The most likely reason for this is that you don’t know how to argue nor have anything to back up your position, ultimately because you’re wrong.

In that context I think tariffs are absolutely valid. In particular, as you mention, because China is subsidising their EV market and thus discounting the export price. A tariff should raise the price of the imported good such that the local good can compete - and we’ve seen this with extreme tariffs on Chinese EVs. Trump actually led the way on this in his first presidency, proving he is the proverbial broken clock. Now Europe also has tariffs on Chinese EVs.

Ideally, this should also involve ring fencing the tariff revenue and exclusively re-investing it into incentives for local businesses to pick up the slack of the imported businesses. This rarely happens, but it should.

This doesn’t work when tariffing the US, though. The US is often already more expensive for the things people import from there. People buy US goods and services because they want the US version; there is no better alternative. The tariff just makes US products even more expensive, costing buyers more. The only thing it does is raise revenue for the government.

In other areas even tariffs against China have been meaningless. If China sells a trinket for 1/10 the price of local industry, then even a 100% tariff would mean the Chinese product costs 2/10 of the local price. People will still buy the Chinese product over the local one, but now they just pay more. Maybe they buy less, so Chinese businesses make less money, but they’ll probably pay more overall. The government get this extra money. This is what Trump is doing in the US with his general tariffs on China, there’s no plan behind them and they’re all but meaningless - the only thing they do is raise tax revenue for the government.

If the only thing a retaliatory tariff does is raise revenue for the government, then it’s no better than what Trump is doing.

A good tariff should minimise the effect at home and maximise the effect against the foreign country the tariff is meant to penalise. I don’t think that’s viable with import tariffs against the US, the effect at home just isn’t worth the minimal damage it would do to US businesses.

It’s 2025, and 90% of all software devs in Hamburg have worked for Otto at some point, and they still can’t get their shit together.

I’d put money on that being a dumpster fire of a workplace - the kind where turnover is very high, everyone is constantly busy putting out fires with slapped together solutions, and if anyone tries to do anything that might prevent future fires they get shouted at for not putting out fires.

The USA detained her at the border because a) there was no direct way for her to go back home from the US/Canada land border; b) she had been refused entry by Canada, who have similar entry requirements, meaning the US should be refusing her entry also; and c) she had already been in the country for 3 weeks and they needed to investigate what she had been doing. That’s an awful lot more than just “vibes”.

But yes, as I said in my comment above, the length of detention is the real fucked up part. That’s longer than needed to sort the logistics or perform any necessary investigations, and proves that this is just about filling private prisons at the expense of taxpayers.

Canada was not in the same position as the US, so the two responses aren’t directly comparable. However, you’re right that the US is not a safe country - I’d even caution US citizens against crossing the border right now.

That one was at the Mexican border, and I think the woman was German.

You might be right, I remember the tattoo one being a girl who was turned away at another border before being detained by the US on her way back. If that happened in Mexico as well it’s easy to see why the two could get confused.

Like I say though the fucked up part is the lengthy detention. That doesn’t benefit anyone except the private prisons, at the expense of American taxpayers.

The comment above said they were 3A charging and that that wasn’t “fast”. I haven’t seen the charging spec for these cables, but they do have a 60W cable. 60W is fast charging, and is likely achieved with 3A at 20V. It’s not as fast as 100W or 240W, sure, but it’s as fast as most phones will go.

These cables probably aren’t rated for 100W or above. Most cables aren’t. However, you can get multiple longer cables rated for that much power for less than one of these.

There is some reason to arrest her. She had already been in the country for 3 weeks doing who knows what, so now that they suspect she was doing something wrong it’s worthwhile to investigate.

There’s even some justification for making the detention a miserable process, so as to deter others. It’s very shitty, and I don’t agree with it, but there is at least a rationality about it.

The real kicker is the length of the detention. This isn’t in the interests of America, this is only in the interests of the private prisons padding their bill to the American taxpayer. The whole process is shitty, but this last part proves that they are only serving their own interests.

Yes that’s my point. There’s a bit more of a process from the Canadian land border than at an airport. At an airport, you’d just be turned around and paying for a flight. At the land border - particularly the border between two countries that don’t want you - it’s going to take a bit longer because the logistics are more complicated. Also, there might be some kind of investigation, as she has already been staying in the country for several weeks at this point.

However we should be talking about like 3-4 days at most (if that), not 3 weeks.

How am I trying to appease Trump? You call me a moron, and yet nothing you say makes sense.

At least we can agree that Trump is a cunt lol.

All I’m saying is that IF a country wants to apply a retaliatory tariff, they should do so in the interests of their own country. They should ring fence the revenue from the tariff and re-invest that in local businesses to replace the foreign imports.

However I don’t think that’s necessary. America isn’t a cheap manufacturing source, it’s expensive high tech. Tariffs are meant to balance prices - like tariffs on cheap Chinese EVs, such that other EVs can be competitive on price. American stuff is already more expensive, so a tariff doesn’t change the equation.

People don’t need tariffs to incentivise themselves not to buy American. They need alternative options to American goods and services. Tariffs won’t do that, at least not without proper planning and re-investment.

Export tariffs would cause even fewer European goods in USA. Nah, let’s not do that.

Not necessarily. Canada has had some success with tariffing exports of electricity. The key part here is that the US can’t stop buying electricity, so sales from Canadian electrical businesses don’t go down, the US just pays more to Canada.

The point being, a tariff has to be clever. It has to minimise the damage at home and maximise the damage overseas. Trump’s tariffs don’t do this, because he’s trying to damage America just as much as he’s trying to damage everywhere else.

Other countries should not do what Trump’s doing, as it will damage their own country.

We’re going to hit them where it hurts.

That’s the thing, a retaliatory tariff probably won’t hurt them. For one, it would only (mildly) affect certain US businesses. For another, people generally don’t have an alternative source, so they end up just paying the tariff. Both US businesses and local people get hurt, the only benefit is that the government gets more money - but that’s not really a benefit if the government isn’t re-investing it. The US government doesn’t really care about US businesses, so they’re not going to capitulate. In the end no one wins except the two governments have more money to piss up the wall.

We’re already looking at buying less from the US wherever possible. People want alternatives, and the US isn’t a cheap source (like China is) so it’s already easy for local businesses to undercut them on price - you don’t need to add a tariff to tip the balance. Tariffs won’t incentivise people, they’re already incentivised, they need options.

If a tariff isn’t paying for such an option then it isn’t worthwile.

If only workplaces would stop using WhatsApp.

You are being ridiculous and calling me names. Grow up, slow down, read what I’ve said and actually think about it. Instead of just acting irrationally and emotional.

I didn’t say not to respond, I said not to do the exact same thing he’s doing.

Import tariffs are a tax on local people. Raising taxes must be justified. In particular, there must be a plan to spend the money raised through tariffs.

Trump has not given any plan, because he is almost certainly going to steal the money.

If any other country wants to implement a tariff, they must do so with a plan to better their country with the tariff revenue, otherwise they’re no better than Trump. You are, in fact, trying to encourage them to do this with no plan. You are enabling other politicians to be like Trump.

Don’t do that.

No, a good tariff includes a plan on what to do with tariff revenue. Ideally, such a plan should re-invest into incentives for local businesses to replace the foreign ones.

An import tariff is a tax on citizens. Taxes must be justified.

The effect of tariffs nationally should be considered before the international effects. Especially with import tariffs.

If you want a good tariff to target America, you should look at export tariffs. This is generally seen as less favourable, as this often means reduced sales for local businesses, but the actual payment is borne by the other nation. Canada has been doing this with their export tariffs on electricity to the US, and that seems to be a truly effective bargaining chip because the US can’t stop buying it, so Canadian businesses don’t actually see lost sales. It’s literally Canada charging the US more for the same.

Import tariffs mean less business for the other country, but more expense for your people.

Export tariffs mean less business for your country, but more expense for their people.

Both result in raising tax revenue for your country. This is why governments are entertaining the idea of tariffs, not because they’re good for their country necessarily, but because it might be a very good political opportunity for them to raise more money.

What makes the tariff good for the country is what the money is spent on. Trump will not spend it on America, he will steal it. If other countries want to create tariffs they should at least have a plan to make good use of the money, otherwise they’re no better than Trump.

While I agree the time in detention was excessive, this wasn’t at an airport, it was at the Canadian land border. So it’s understandable that she wouldn’t immediately get on a plane back home - she’d likely have to be taken to a central facility and then transferred to an airport. But yeah, that shouldn’t take 3 weeks.

You’re angry at America and ICE, but it was Canada that refused her entry and first took issue with her activity. After that, when she immediately came back across the border, America was pretty much obligated to look into things.

They definitely should have just deported her immediately, but she apparently did break the visa terms. I read somewhere it was to do with her giving tattoos, or at least that was part of the accusation against her.

3 weeks’ detention is the fucked up part.

She narced on herself to Canada, then America overheard.