The Twilight / Fifty Shades of Grey gambit.

• No prior experience in building and operating high speed rail.

• Track standards must be much higher.

• Track must be completely secure from people and animals, and geology. This means high fences and shallow cuttings set far back from the running lines.

• The line can only be crossed by bridges or tunnels. No level crossings.

• Long distances pose issues in crew turnaround.

• Track must be as straight and flat as possible. North America has space, but also has geography.

• Reliable catenary power supply.

They should have drafted better laws.

In an immediate, visceral experiential sense they’ve lost protections, but in a legal sense those protections never existed, and the first legal challenge showed they were like smoke in air. hopefully this will shake things up and get some proper substantial protections into law.

Given there was only one writer, and he knew nothing about computing other than how to turn one on, nope.

He doubled down exponentially because he can’t be wrong.

They were part of a land grab that took it from the Spanish along with Guam and some other places. Gained independence in 1946.

Lack of hostile land grabs? West of the Mississippi, Texas, Hawaii and the Philippines would beg to differ.

It’s not a war crime, there’s no war. It’s a crime against humanity. Let’s please use the language correctly.

This bombastic style of reporting isn’t helpful. The ruling doesn’t “strip” protections, it clarifies that Scotland made a law based on an error in interpretation of an earlier law, ergo those protections never existed. It further points out that the Equalities Act confers protections on trans people regardless. The protections of the Scottish law were a mirage - insubstantial and not legal.

This is an opportunity to introduce the protections Scotland thought were in force, but actually.

I can see why people are dismayed, but this is procedural law, and a route to more iron-clad protections in the future.

The Fr*nch hate Parisians too.

Wow, what foresight they had to appease Trump 6 years before he was elected… This law was written in 2010. The ruling clarified that a more recent Scottish law which relied on this one did so by misinterpreting that law’s definition of women.

As to Chamberlain, at the time of the Munich agreement, the Luftwaffe had the most advanced air force in the world, while the RAF were only equipped with biplanes. Chamberlain bought time for the development and manufacture of armaments, significantly the Spitfire and Hurricane, and in the event it was just enough time, with losses in the Battle of Britain barely being outstripped by replacements. So yeah, turned out alright.

It didn’t remove protections trans people had yesterday. It clarified that they didn’t have those protections under that law yesterday, because the law in question defined women by sex. Now that is understood, further legislation to add protections can be proposed. The ruling also pointed out that there are also existing protections under another law.

I’d rather she release some space meme instagram thread than inflict another album on the earthbound.

The Supreme Court doesn’t make the rules, it makes a determination on what the rules mean in context of the body of law. It’s not their fault that Parliament passed a badly worded law. It’s a positive step that the law has been clarified, and now the changes needed can be identified.

The judges can only consider the law as written, which uses a sex at birth definition. They can’t make new stuff up out of nowhere. That’s Parliament’s job.

The Supreme Court can only work with the laws as written. The legislation defines women by sex at birth, so they are right to make the ruling they have. Those opposed should direct their efforts to Parliament, who can re-write the law. This ruling is a positive step as it sets out clearly how the law currently stands.

Well you seemed to like the Apple Pie.

He’s been nobody for years.

You’re unaware of the international criminal court then.