I don’t disagree; I’m just pointing out that the judge was unlikely to be targeting the barrister for any political reason. Courts always discourage any overly obvious suggestion of jury nullification, regardless of the case being tried or whether it does or does not relate to Israel.

Zimbabwe was already mining the lithium, so the environmental damage was already happening. What’s new here is that it’s now processing it locally. This means Zimbabwe gets a bigger percentage of the money that’s made from this lithium. A nation’s resources should be profitable primarily to itself.

Additionally, exporting for processing is more environmentally damaging than doing it locally because when you export, then in addition to whatever damage is done by processing, you also get all the environmental damage that comes from all that transportation. Eliminating the transportation at least removes one unnecessary element of environmental damage in an industrial chain that would exist one way or the other.

The whole point of a jury system is that jurors aren’t morons.

I’m certainly no great fan of Mnangagwa, but this certainly seems to be a great move for the country and its future prosperity.

Given that even before his closing statement, the judge had already warned him not to encourage jury nullification, he can’t have been that subtle.

With an argument like that, it sounds like you have a lot of contempt for the court system. So if the barrister also argued in open court that “ignoring all law and evidence is the right thing to do”…

I wonder whether this will provide a stabilizing influence on the region, after the exit of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.

Juries can practice jury nullification if they want and nobody can stop them, but barristers aren’t supposed to suggest it. Imagine if, say, a prosecutor told an Israeli jury that they didn’t technically need evidence to arrive at a “guilty” verdict for a Palestinian defendant, just “their conscience”. Jury nullification can’t become just another trial strategy, or the whole legal system becomes worthless.

The key is simply ensuring that Ukraine survives whatever Putin’s planning next. This sell-off might be to fund a troop surge. There’s zero chance that Putin loses the war without at least attempting a general mobilization first. Regardless of how badly it would have the potential to backfire, it’s definitely a desperation tactic that Putin will at least attempt before admitting defeat. Ukraine’s strategy is working at the moment, but in much the same way that Ukraine attacking Russia’s economic resources is putting Russia under pressure, Russia stretching Ukraine’s manpower could put Ukraine under pressure.

In the recent drama between Fedorov and Syrskyi, one of the things Syrskyi mentioned at his dismissal was how complicated troop procurement has been. The West can loan Ukraine money, but it can’t help with Ukraine’s manpower. So whether or not Ukraine’s drone strategy can still neutralize Russia’s manpower advantage if Russia issues a general mobilization order is a question I’ve been worrying about.

From OP’s article:

Earlier, reports emerged that Russia’s central bank has reduced its gold holdings for a sixth consecutive month, selling 43.5 metric tons since January in the largest six-month drawdown recorded in at least a quarter-century.

The sales came as Russia’s federal budget deficit approached 6 trillion rubles (more than $76 billion) during the first half of the year.

So we know how much gold was sold, but I couldn’t tell you how much is left.

Too late. I’ve already switched to Linux Mint and am never going back.

There’s a difference between calculating the necessary tensile strength of a chain and calculating how much energy would be required to make a chain of that tensile strength. For example, if an undiscovered element is required, does that mean it would need to be generated from nothing, so to speak, with a particle accelerator? How much energy would that take for a cosmically large chain? Or are we to assume that a massive asteroid composed entirely of this miracle material will simply pass Earth closely by?

Generally speaking, thought experiments need to yield useful conclusions before they’re worth publishing. Even if your “mithril” could exist, this thought experiment doesn’t even cover the question of whether this system of chains would yield enough energy to justify the amount of energy that would be spent creating and maintaining this cosmic-scale mechanism. And wouldn’t the “biological organisms” be constantly spending colossal amounts of energy just to prevent these chains from ripping away from their anchor points?

And not all types of energy are equal. Energy needs to useful. Even if this system could be created at an energy profit, how would we harness that energy towards useful ends? Would the energy be used to somehow boil water to turn a dynamo to generate electricity? Does enough water even exist on Earth to be put to that purpose? We can currently cause fusion reactions if we want to, but the problem is harnessing them towards useful purposes. We don’t need to invent an even bigger bomb.

Oh, I wasn’t arguing in favor of the system. I was just pointing out that if one was to look for the mustache-twirling villains behind everything, they wouldn’t find them at Blackrock. The people working at Blackrock are simply deluded enough to think that they can stave off the pension bomb forever if they just keep the numbers going up forever. As you rightly point out, the system isn’t sustainable. But as long as the overall economic system doesn’t get the drastic general overhaul that it needs (but that nobody has the stomach for), it’ll remain a Nash Equilibrium whereby nobody can move to end it unless everyone does.

That’s not a revolution.

The main problem is that investment funds need the constant growth in order to pay for people’s pension. If you don’t have index funds that return above a given yield, year on year, then there’s no way for pensions to work because there aren’t enough young people being born to work and pay taxes to support the older people’s pensions. That’s why every financial services company is pushed, hard, to return more and more profits. That’s why governments don’t regulate them harder: because they NEED the financial sector to be greedy on an epic scale, or else the economy doesn’t work.

https://youtu.be/nBEgJZdd2BQ

SETH: “Shit, this is really gonna affect people.”

WILL: “Yeah, it’s gonna affect people like me!”

SETH: “No, no, real… real people.”

WILL: “Jesus, Seth; listen, if you really wanna do this with your life, you have to believe you’re necessary. And you are. People wanna live like this, in their cars, and their big fuckin’ houses that they can’t even pay for? Then you’re necessary. The only reason that they all get to continue living like kings is ‘cause we’ve got our fingers on the scales in their favor. I take my hand off? Well then the whole world gets really fuckin’ fair, really fuckin’ quickly, and nobody actually wants that. They say they do, but they don’t. They want what we have to give them, but they also wanna, you know… play innocent, and pretend that they have no idea where it came from. Well, that’s more hypocrisy than I’m willing to swallow, so fuck 'em. Fuck normal people. You know, the funny thing is, tomorrow, if all of this goes tits-up? They’re gonna crucify us for being too reckless. But if we’re wrong? And everything gets back on track? Well then the same people are gonna laugh 'til they piss their pants, 'cause we’re gonna look like the biggest pussies God ever let through the door.”

SETH: “You think we’re gonna be wrong?”

WILL: “Nah, they’re all fucked.”

The whole world economy is based on a system whereby the global regions and demographics that Have, extract wealth and value from the regions and demographics that Have Not. And everybody here commenting on this post are Haves. Maybe not on the scale that some others are, but I know I certainly didn’t have to walk several hours today just to get clean drinkable water. Given what some people are forced to do without despite how hard they work, I really shouldn’t be able to afford the lifestyle I have for the amount of work I do. But I can, and that’s because my government tilts the scales in my favor. And even I’m financially screwed compared to some other people! The only way to fix it is a complete overhaul, and nobody has the stomach for that.

That would matter in a criminal prosecution where guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. However in a civil suit, all the BBC needs to do is convince a jury.

If you insist that strict capitalism has never failed because neither the USA nor any other Western nation has ever practiced pure unadulterated capitalism, then you necessarily have to accept that strict Marxism has never failed either, because neither the USSR nor any other communist nation has ever practiced pure unadulterated Marxism.

Yep.

If Trump refuses discovery it would be a huge payout for the BBC, not from them