Month: January 2025

Brexit, Journal, Politics

Chagos island: The UK Last Colony and American Colony

| admin

Chagos island: The UK Last Colony and American Colony

The Chagos Islands have been in the news a lot recently due to talks between the UK and Mauritius over control. Currently, they are a British Overseas Territory (UKOT), but the islands host a joint UK-US military base. The Americans lease the islands from the British, who, rather controversially, expelled the original inhabitants and replaced them with Americans working for the military.

Why Do the Islands Matter?

The Chagos Islands are slap bang in the middle of the Indian Ocean, with Africa to the west, the Middle East to the north, and Asia to the east. Back in the 1960s, during the Cold War, the Americans were worried about the Soviets and wanted a stable spot for a military base. The Middle East was a major focus at the time, and the 1970s were full of upheaval there. The UK kept the islands when Mauritius became independent because they were seen as vital for containing the Soviet Union. For decades, UK and US foreign policy have been closely tied, and the islands are just one example of that.

A Bit of History

For most of history, nobody lived on the islands. They were claimed by the French colony that became Mauritius, which eventually turned into a British colony. After Napoleon lost in 1815, Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were handed over to the British. The British had already redrawn maps, taking the islands away from the Maldives. Back then, there weren’t official borders or legal frameworks, but those decisions are still causing arguments today. For example, the Maldives is much closer to the Chagos Islands than Mauritius, which has led to disputes over fishing rights and sovereignty.

The first British colony on the islands was set up in 1793. Enslaved people were brought in to work on coconut plantations, and their descendants lived there until they were forcibly removed in the 1960s. Slavery was abolished in 1834, and by 1840, many of the islanders were descendants of freed slaves.

The Expulsion of the 1960s

In November 1965, the UK bought the entire Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius (which was self-governing at the time) for £3 million, creating the British Indian Ocean Territory. The plantations on the islands weren’t profitable due to competition from other oils and lubricants, making the economy unsustainable. The islands were closed to make way for military activities, and the population was forcibly removed.

Between 1967 and 1973, the UK expelled the islanders, sending them to Mauritius and the Seychelles. An agreement with the US required the islands to be uninhabited for military purposes. The Mauritian government resisted taking in more displaced islanders without compensation, so in 1973, the UK agreed to pay reparations. It’s a dark chapter in British history, adding to the country’s colonial legacy.

Legal Fights

Brexit hasn’t helped the UK’s reputation or influence, making it harder to rely on allies for diplomatic cover. For decades, no court would hear the case of the Chagos Islands. The European Court of Human Rights refused in 2012, which often gets overlooked. But in 2015, Mauritius won a case about fishing rights, with a ruling that the marine protected area around the islands was illegal. This boosted Mauritius’s claim.

In February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK should return the islands to Mauritius. The ruling wasn’t legally binding, but it added pressure. International law and global opinion have shifted against the UK.

Negotiations

When Boris Johnson was PM, he started talks about returning the islands. Liz Truss continued the process, and now, after two years, Keir Starmer has reached a deal. Under the agreement, sovereignty over the islands would go to Mauritius, but the UK-US military base would remain. You can read the deal here.

Not everyone is happy. The Chagossians were left out of the decision-making process about their homeland. The Maldives isn’t thrilled either, as the deal overrides its claims. It’s another messy outcome of Britain’s map-redrawing and colonial history. But the Maldives has supported Mauritius’s claim. Why? Likely for favoured access to fishing rights or other political interests. With pressure on the UK, Mauritius is likely to take ownership. Why jeopardise relations between Mauritius and the Maldives?

The Fallout

The deal has had a mixed reaction in the UK. Critics from across the political spectrum have attacked it, and the media has jumped on it as an opportunity to bash Labour. What’s frustrating is how many commentators ignored the issue when Boris Johnson or Liz Truss were involved. A quick search shows barely any articles from those same pundits. Now, they’re using it to attack a working-class leader without offering real insights. It’s more about scoring political points than genuinely caring about the islands.

Searching Hansard’s House of Commons records shows Chagos was mentioned about four times per year for decades. Mentions only started increasing in the 2000s, with 15 in 2001, 20 in 2016, and 34 in October 2024 when the deal was announced. Similar numbers appear when searching for “Chagos Islands” or “British Indian Ocean Territory.”

Geopolitics

The world has changed. Climate change means rising sea levels threaten the Chagos Islands. Mauritius has been getting closer to China, and the US isn’t the reliable ally it once was. If the base is so vital, why hasn’t the UK strengthened it or taken control? Why has the UK done so little about climate change? Instead, defence spending has been cut, and Britain’s influence is fading. Some critics still have an imperial mindset, refusing to accept that the UK is now a middle power with limited sway. Meanwhile, Starmer, being a lawyer, followed the ICJ’s judgment on principle, even though it wasn’t binding. The deal allows the base to stay under a 50-year lease, with payments to Mauritius for resettlement. Islanders can return, but not near the base.

The Trump Factor

Donald Trump’s likely return to the White House could complicate things. Any agreement about the UK-US base will need his approval, and he’s unpredictable. With the US growing more confrontational with China, the base becomes even more important. The region has seen countries drift away from America and the West. When Trump was first elected, the UK used him as an excuse to avoid tough decisions. Now, Britain is trying to stay close to both the EU and the US, which isn’t easy. Critics complain about Britain’s declining status but don’t want to fund the military properly.

What Do We Do?

Writing this blog post has been an eye-opener. I’ve learned about a dark bit of our colonial history that I knew little about before. Honestly, I’m torn on what we should do. The main options are:

  • A: Accept the deal with Mauritius. It’s practical, closes a dark chapter, and restores the UK’s global reputation.

  • B: Offer the Maldives the islands. Politically difficult, undermines international law, and seen as bad faith.

  • C: Offer the Chagossians ownership. Legally complex, diplomatically risky, and seen as illegitimate by many.

  • D: Ignore the issue. The deal is politically toxic, and without US support, it may stall.

  • E: Seek an EU deal. Unlikely, as the EU wouldn’t bypass international law, and trust in the UK is low.

The most realistic options are A (since a deal exists) and D (due to political challenges in passing it).

Torn on What to Do

I’d love to return the islands to the Chagossians and give them a choice, but it would be costly and politically fraught. The islands have military value, and maybe the lesson here is that we should get closer to Europe. Striking a deal with the US and Europe could be beneficial. It could also help tackle issues like African migration and piracy. However, aligning more with Europe risks conflict with an independent-minded America.

Final Thoughts

The Chagos Islands debate exposes uncomfortable truths about Britain’s colonial past and declining influence. Some see the deal as a humiliation; others view it as a pragmatic step in a changing world. The real issue is that parts of the UK still haven’t come to terms with the loss of empire. The question is: can Britain adapt to its new reality, or will it keep clinging to a fantasy?

Journal

Destiny 2: Rise, Relapse, and Decline

| admin

Destiny 2: Rise, Relapse, and Decline

The other day, I had a Destiny 2 relapse. I hadn’t played much Destiny 2 (D2) since 2019, back when it first became free-to-play. For some reason, I decided to redownload it. Why? Well, it was partly the streamers—Destiny players jumping into Warframe (WF) got me curious. I’ve been playing WF, so seeing streamers pivot to it made me wonder what’s going on with Destiny. Bungie’s two recent rounds of layoffs also raised questions. What are the player numbers like now? What’s been added? What’s changed? Why are streamers leaving? That last question is what made me hit download.

First Impressions

First, I was struck by just how high the production value of Destiny 2 is. The environments feature stunning skyboxes that make everything feel bigger than it is—an illusion most games rely on. However, the levels themselves are linear, open-world-style maps with one or two starting points. They feel empty—like a desert: sparse and lifeless. There are only a few activities or encounters scattered about, and they lack the vibrancy to make the world feel alive. There aren’t even animals or small details to bring the environment to life. The characters you do encounter are static, with no voice lines outside of quests. It feels like an older game limited by hardware. Even more frustrating, content from 2017 feels remarkably similar to content from 2024. The formula hasn’t evolved.

Frustration

This staleness feeds into an overall frustrating experience. It’s not clear what you’re supposed to be doing. The game doesn’t guide you well. I tried to search for answers, but the flood of information online is either unhelpful or outdated. Warframe suffers from a similar issue, but its codex system makes things easier to figure out. It shows which quests need doing and explains mechanics better. It’s not perfect, but compared to Destiny 2, it’s a godsend. For example, Destiny asked me to “visit the Drifter.” Who is that? Where is that? In Warframe, the codex would at least give you a bit more information.

The result is an experience that feels alienating. For a game with such high production values, it’s oddly unwelcoming.

Free to Play… or Locked Fun?

Destiny’s free-to-play (F2P) model also rubs me the wrong way. While the base game is technically free, much of the content is locked behind paywalls. Worse, some of that content eventually gets removed from the game entirely. This makes it feel less like a true F2P game and more like a demo. You can play one mission before you have to pay.

Most F2P games make their money through cosmetic microtransactions, but Destiny combines that with paid expansions. On console, certain content even requires a subscription due to platform rules. It’s a business model more akin to an MMO than a F2P game, but even then, it falls short. Other F2P games at least offer consistent access to their content; Destiny seems to thrive on locking fun away.

Less MMO, More Looter Shooter

Destiny’s gameplay loop revolves around loot. You can choose between three classes, and the goal is to gather gear. While this is similar to MMOs, Destiny lacks key MMO features. There’s no crafting, no trading, and no player housing. Instead, you’re tasked with farming bounties to get randomly generated loot. The idea is to grind until you get a good roll. The system allows you to merge gear to improve it, but this process isn’t well-explained. The lack of guidance makes it hard to know if you’re making progress.

It also wants to be a hero shooter, but the classes feel too similar to differentiate them meaningfully. While the weapons feel good to use, the rest of the experience feels shallow—like it’s torn between genres and unable to commit to any one identity.

Shadow of Halo

Destiny feels like a Halo clone, which is ironic given that Bungie created Halo. It’s as if Bungie has stuck to one game style and refused to try anything different. The result is a game that feels like it’s in a constant identity crisis.

Destiny’s core design lacks direction. It feels like it was originally meant to be a single-player game that was awkwardly morphed into an MMO-lite. Yet, it’s missing essential MMO features like trading or clan headquarters. Combine this with an epic, serious story mixed with an unserious tone, and you get a game that doesn’t quite know what it wants to be.

Warframe vs Destiny

On the surface, Destiny and Warframe seem similar—sci-fi looter shooters competing for the same audience. But a closer look shows stark differences. Bungie has 1,300 employees (not all working on Destiny), while Digital Extremes (DE) has around 500 employees (again, not all working on Warframe). Yet DE has consistently outpaced Bungie in terms of content delivery.

Here’s a quick breakdown of major Destiny content since 2019:

  • Shadowkeep (Oct 2019)

  • Beyond Light (Nov 2020)

  • Witch Queen (Feb 2022)

  • Lightfall (Feb 2023)

  • Final Shape (June 2024)

Meanwhile, Warframe delivered:

  • 15 major updates (U24 to U38), including multiple new open worlds, quests, modes, and remasters.

  • Examples include The New War, The Duviri Paradox, and Warframe: 1999.

Warframe’s updates are free and remain accessible. The game has evolved significantly, adding new characters, reworking old content, and introducing systems like spaceship combat, racing, and even fishing. Warframe embraces creativity and risk-taking. Destiny, by comparison, feels small—even its grand skyboxes can’t hide its lack of scope.

Zero Advertising, Maximum Respect

There’s a joke in the gaming community that Warframe’s advertising budget is Destiny’s development budget. Warframe’s success has come from respecting its players’ time and wallets. Weekly development updates and livestreams keep the community informed, creating a sense of connection. By contrast, Bungie’s communication has been sparse—a single blog post in 2024 is hardly enough.

Warframe is one of the longest-running and most popular F2P games, consistently delivering more with less. Destiny may have had greater mainstream success, but Warframe has quietly built a loyal community by doing right by its players.

Do I Keep Playing?

That’s a hard question to answer. I’m finding little reason to stick around. I’m curious about certain systems—how to get better armour, what the Light system does, and how to get stronger—but the lack of guidance makes it a struggle. I’m playing solo and don’t want to spend money, so I’m muddling through. Destiny feels like it’s in a lull, and I can’t take it too seriously.

What puzzles me most is why Destiny was so successful in the first place. Everything I disliked about the beta remains, yet it’s managed to maintain a large audience. Maybe that’s the real mystery—how a game with so many flaws became one of gaming’s biggest names.

Journal

Artificial Intelligence (AI): Computer-Generated Storm

| admin

Artificial Intelligence (AI): Computer-Generated Storm

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has taken the tech world by storm, becoming a central topic of conversation. Once a niche interest, it now concerns everyone. Machine learning and algorithms have long dominated this space, but AI promises something even smarter. These advanced models claim to produce human-like language, art, videos, and voices at impressive speeds. However, human input remains essential for their output. But do these advancements truly represent intelligence?

The Risks of Human-Like Output

The companies behind AI often focus on potential future capabilities, promising remarkable achievements with more data, control, and power. However, this human-like output poses significant risks. For example, scammers now use AI-generated voices to mimic family members, creating new avenues for fraud (The Guardian). These scams involve spoofed phone calls, claiming a family member is in trouble and needs money—an old scam with a new technological twist.

Artists are also under threat from AI-generated cover bands, which dilute their original work (Slate). Similarly, authors face fake books published under their names, damaging their reputations as they struggle to remove these fraudulent works. Deepfake technology exacerbates these issues, escalating concerns around online abuse and privacy (Boston University).

Data: The New Goldmine

Data has become the new goldmine, with AI models demanding more of it. Companies like Reddit have struck deals with Google and OpenAI to license content, setting a precedent for others (Reuters, The Verge). However, some companies are pushing back against their content being used for free to train models. For instance, the New York Times has filed a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI (Harvard Law).

This is just one of many ongoing legal battles. OpenAI’s consumer-focused chatbots and Meta’s open-source Llama model illustrate the rapid evolution of large language models. Open-source models, often developed without much fanfare, are making quick progress. Practical applications like NVIDIA’s DLSS 3, used for upscaling and frame generation, showcase AI’s potential, despite ongoing challenges. Here’s a video showcasing DLSS 3.

DLSS 4 is coming soon that video is two years old and we’re currently on version 3.8.

The Reality of AI Hype

Despite these advancements, much of the current AI hype feels like a marketing gimmick rather than a transformative tool. AI outputs have their uses but are also susceptible to misuse. Concerns about unregulated use by individuals and potential data breaches are already surfacing, as seen in the case of Star Health’s data leak (Life Insurance International). Imagine the risks when employees use such technologies without their employers’ knowledge, potentially exposing sensitive information to remote servers (Forbes). Something that has already happened leaking of information.

Addressing the Challenges

While I don’t see this wave of computer-generated content as an immediate threat, I have serious concerns about our ability to grapple with existing problems. Misinformation and disinformation thrive in an environment that prioritises engagement over quality, exacerbated by lax moderation practices. Tackling these issues would require overhauling business models and restricting who can post online—steps that could reinforce the dominance of existing tech giants and stifle new challengers.

The internet, built on non-profit code and maintained by a few volunteers, faces growing instability. Big tech has built empires atop this fragile foundation, often unwilling to share profits or cede control. With major regulatory powers like the USA, China, and the EU each pursuing their own visions, the once open World Wide Web increasingly resembles a series of closed-off walled gardens.

The Future of AI and Content

With the flood of computer-generated content on the horizon, distinguishing between real and fake will become increasingly difficult. As we silo ourselves into personalised content bubbles, our perspectives on reality may diverge further. Addressing these challenges will require a concerted effort to ensure that AI serves as a tool for enhancement, not exploitation.

For clarity, I did put this into ChatGPT for spell-checking and grammar edits. It is a useful tool but does not transform the world. Here is the problem without me telling you, you would not have guessed.