Category: Journal

David’s Journal entries

Politics

Awful April

| admin

Awful April

America right now feels like someone throwing things onto the lawn while their house burns down. At the same time, the water sprinkler is running. You can hear screaming and shouting, yet you can’t look away from the circus unfolding before your eyes. They’re yelling at you and blaming you for everything—a former friend turned into a monster. It’s a stark reminder that we’re all just one bad decision away from becoming monstrous or evil ourselves.

That’s exactly how I feel about this trade war and their overall behavior—switching sides, burning alliances, and becoming radicalized before our eyes as their new boyfriend grins. A couple of years ago, I suggested we should take a sledgehammer to online systems to stop the radicalization of people. Now, I think that step is absolutely necessary.

The irony here is that George Lucas’s Star Wars epic portrayed trade wars and the decline into authoritarianism. It feels eerily inspired, as it was influenced by the Vietnam War. Perhaps we’ll see something similar in years to come; it already feels like satire at this point. This current trade war feels stupid and genuinely worrying. Why the backsliding and lack of pushback? Checks and balances are meaningless if they aren’t enforced. It’s easy to forget that some of the worst leaders and regimes in history were once elected.

This reminds me of a video I saw recently from A Man for All Seasons—the devil speech. The point of the speech was simple: if you remove due process from one group, you can remove it from all groups. It’s a lesson people seem to forget as the worst moments in history fade. Law should be respected and applied equally to everyone. Because who’s to say it can’t be used against you, and what’s standing in the way to prevent it?

The reason I bring this up is because people are crying about a two-tier justice system, taking into account racial and social factors. But the reality is that most people don’t realize we already have a two-tier justice system—those who can afford lawyers and those who can’t. Yet there’s no outcry to address that problem. This is where the ideological inconsistencies of most voters drive me mad.

My point is that the radicalization of people is happening and should be considered a major problem. Watching the leader of the UK opposition spread falsehoods and lies about a TV show is disheartening—it’s radicalization happening in real time. Instead of banning porn or other distractions, we should be focusing on social media models and algorithms. Something far more sinister is happening globally, and it deserves attention. I understand the world is chaotic with many problems, but honestly, something needs to be done. Banning is the easy option, and it doesn’t work. Regulation and restoring trust matter. Otherwise, who’s to say we won’t be next?

Brexit, Politics

Fishy Business of Security

| admin

Fishy Business of Security

Fishy business could be holding up the UK-EU defence pact, and honestly, it’s fascinating how something as mundane as fishing rights can derail a vital security agreement. A pinch of salt is needed here, but Sweden’s EU affairs minister, Jessica Rosencrantz, has been refreshingly honest about the situation.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Russia is ramping up pressure—not just with war, but through sabotage, espionage, and other indirect acts. America feels unreliable as an ally these days. Hostility towards Europe is growing, with public opinion turning sour and distancing from them. The US seems to outright hate Europe and wants to dismantle the European Union. So much for isolationist policies! This could even be an existential crisis for us. Sovereignty and security are at risk. The UK, along with France, is one of the few European nations able to project military power globally, making the UK an indispensable player in European security. If you’re wondering why Russia is keen to divide and sideline Europe, that’s precisely why. The UK and EU desperately need this pact to safeguard each other, and decoupling from America to take security into our own hands is increasingly urgent.

The war in Ukraine drags on. Europe is rearming, and Russia isn’t shy about showing its hostility towards the UK. It’s clear they see us as a major threat, and they’d love nothing more than for Britain to fall. Most voters don’t seem to notice, but the evidence is plain—murder, spying, sabotage. These acts are carefully designed to avoid provoking a formal declaration of war, but they’re war all the same. This isn’t just Britain’s problem; it’s happening all across Europe. Refugees are being weaponised to destabilise European politics, adding yet another layer to the chaos. Some might ask why we should care about Ukraine and European security, but the connection is obvious. Russia is Europe’s gas station. The war in Ukraine sent energy prices soaring, heavily impacting UK energy costs tied to natural gas. If you care about your fuel bill, you should care about this. Refugees and asylum seekers matter too—if Ukraine falls, millions will flee Russian rule. These seemingly unconnected issues are deeply linked.

Both sides want this defence pact sorted fast, and climate change adds more urgency. Arctic shipping routes are opening up, and protecting them will be crucial. Ireland is under the UK’s security umbrella, with the UK carrying the load since Ireland doesn’t have its own armed forces. Vast amounts of cargo bound for Europe travel by sea, and undersea cables connect the City of London to the continent. Britain acts as Europe’s fortress island, safeguarding the Atlantic and the Arctic alongside Nordic countries. Ireland and the Arctic are vulnerable, and the UK defence industry is eager to get involved in Europe’s rearmament. But neither the EU nor the UK is going to make this easy. Enter fishing rights—the bargaining chip.

Fishing rights have always been a contentious topic. The UK can’t sell fish into the EU market due to trade barriers we agreed to, so holding onto these rights seems pointless. Yet fishing stirs deep national sentiment. There’s a romanticism about fishermen braving the high seas that resonates emotionally. It’s similar to farmers—everyone loves them, yet we fail to pay them properly. People want cheap food but balk at the idea of paying more, having grown used to rock-bottom prices. Fishing rights always spark emotion during trade talks, even though most people don’t think about it daily. But here’s the thing—pragmatism has to win. Resolving fishing rights could rebuild trust and open the door to broader cooperation. Jessica Rosencrantz is right: fixing this issue creates space to resolve other sensitive topics, like defence.

It’s about much more than fish—it’s about security. Collaborating with European fleets to protect the North Sea from Russia, China, or even America is crucial. If sharing fishing rights helps make that happen, surely it’s worth considering? Russia and China are already eyeing undersea cables, and we don’t have enough ships to protect them. Russia is even suspected—though unproven—of tampering with these cables already. The case for increasing UK defence spending and expanding our navy and air force is strong.

Let’s face it—the UK’s economy is struggling. Stagnant growth, inflation, and poor productivity weigh us down. Undoing some of the trade barriers we created post-Brexit is common sense. Patching up the flat tyre won’t fix the whole car, but it’ll stop the wobble. The UK can’t keep trying to act as a bridge between the US, EU, and itself—it’s unsustainable. For security and economic stability, rejoining the European community isn’t just logical; it’s critical. Am I thrilled about this? Not really, but it’s where we are. Lay the blame squarely at the decision-makers who led us into this mess, and for goodness’ sake, stop voting for those peddling cakeism and false promises.

British exceptionalism needs to die. Clinging to empire fantasies holds us back, and parroting this rubbish does Britain no favours. If we’re going to rebuild, we need to make the case emotionally and clearly—not just with facts, but in a way people connect with. Denial won’t get us anywhere; it’s time for a dose of reality. I’d rather not be subject to whims and wishes of others without a say, forced to go along with it. What sovereignty is there in that? Better to pool resources with like-minded nations. Sharing the burden is cheaper.

The EU sees this differently, and understandably so. The UK hasn’t treated them well, so caution is natural. It’s like an ex suddenly wanting to share resources after years of distance—would you trust them? If your answer’s yes, I’d question your judgement. Changing your mind is fine, but the EU wants proof that we’re serious this time. Negotiations are simple: you give, they give. It’s baffling how many seem to lack a basic grasp of strategy—I’ve spent far too much time playing real-time strategy games, and even I understand.

Critical thinking is desperately needed, but unchecked sources and half-truths dominate. Politicians should be alarmed, but they seem oddly relaxed. Maybe they’re cushioned by algorithm-driven bubbles. It’s worrying. Neurodivergent thinkers like me might not fit into traditional politics, but we care deeply. I’ve considered stepping in because the problems are clear and solvable. Cleverer people than me have failed spectacularly, though. I’ve been told I should go for it, but the road’s long, and I’m unsure I’d fit the mould. Then again, doubting I’d be great at it might be what makes me suited for it.

Why do we keep electing the same people who lead us astray? Why do we listen to the rich preaching what’s best for us while dodging their responsibilities? Why aren’t we asking tougher questions and prioritising what truly matters? Spending more time choosing your underwear than questioning bin collection policies doesn’t make sense. Politics impacts every aspect of daily life, and focusing on trivialities over real issues is frustrating. Voters are messy—they want impossible things and conflicting promises. Politicians over-promise because voters demand it. Maybe it’s time for leaders who lead, not chase illusions. We need a more grounded, collaborative system. Less theatre, more substance. Voters must stay engaged beyond elections, and politicians need to sound relatable. I admit I can get overly technical, but the core issues are there if you dig past the fluff.

The UK and EU stand at a crossroads, with their futures intertwined in ways many voters barely recognise. Fishing rights might seem trivial on the surface, but they symbolise something much deeper—trust, collaboration, and a willingness to compromise. These are the building blocks for a defence pact that’s not just about protecting borders but ensuring Europe can stand united against those who would divide and conquer. It’s frustrating watching Europe move slowly, with some decisions driven by pride. Cynicism only strengthens our opponents and weakens us. Yet there’s a glimmer of hope—Europe is not weak but strong. Sovereignty isn’t about isolation; it’s about pooling resources. The world is more interconnected than ever, and pretending we can go it alone is foolish.

The glass may feel half empty right now, but it’s not empty. There’s still something worth fighting for—it’s the foundation upon which European peace was built. After the dark shadow of World War II, a better future emerged. One built on trade, cooperation, pragmatism, and a belief in security and stability. If we can stop clinging to outdated notions of exceptionalism and focus on what truly matters, there’s no reason Europe, including the UK, can’t be stronger, safer, and more resilient. We can learn from history or repeat the same mistakes of the past.

 

Journal, Politics

The Democratic Dilemma: Resist or Radicalize?

| admin

The Democratic Dilemma: Resist or Radicalize?

The American presidential election happened in November 2024. A narrow win feels like a landslide. In terms of the popular vote, the margin was 1.62%. Yet Republicans have wasted no time attacking everything—or more accurately, breaking everything. The president now wields king-like powers, standing above all other branches. This is far from normal. It represents a centralization of power and an attack on the federal system while simultaneously expanding control over states. Checks and balances seem complicit in this shift, highlighting how radical the change has been. However, something much bigger is happening beneath the surface.

Top Trumps

Trump won, and Harris lost. Since that defeat, Democrats have drifted. They lack a united message or voice. Leadership of the party is spread across many roles and offices. The strength of the federal government—decentralized power—has become a glaring weakness. Unlike many other political systems, there is no single opposition leader. What was once a strength is now a liability. The party has been vocal about Trump breaking rules and norms, yet many voters appear indifferent. The silence from Republicans has gone unchallenged. The mainstream media has tried to paint what is happening as normal. It is anything but normal, as Project 2025 unfolds—a deeply unpopular platform that is breaking everything.

Dazed by Defeat

Dazed by defeat, Democrats have not had time to process. Members have tried to explain the flipping of all three branches of government. The obvious point is the economy; voters told everyone it was inflation and their anger over it. Poor messaging, failure to listen to voters, and a desire to punish the party are the answers. Voters wanted change, frustrated with political gridlock. Various figures have offered ideas and analyses of why, who, and what happened. Some common themes emerge, but many are fighting past battles. It feels like a funeral happening one day after a death, with people at the wake fighting over what went wrong.

Stacking the Cards

It is unknown what these changes mean for future election cycles. The deck is being stacked in favor of Republicans. Loyalists are being installed at every level, and political appointments—scrapped decades ago—are being reintroduced. We don’t yet know how this will play out. If every new government removes civil servants, the American system, like clockwork, could grind to a halt, creating chaos. The midterms and the next race will come quickly, with different offices and seats up for grabs. Even something like voting districts can be gamed, sealing an advantage. This narrow defeat has painful consequences. With limited guardrails and moral values, people will do anything to get ahead. Republicans have proven they are ruthless and unwilling to relinquish power. This leads to a dangerous situation that could unfold. Insurrection has happened once. Under the surface, something much bigger is brewing—a volatile electorate that is fragmenting. It feels different this time.

Resist or Radicalization?

Two schools of thought have emerged. Democrats can sit back and watch the chaos unfold, playing by the old rules. Norms apply to them but not their opponents. They don’t propose major changes and instead play within the old system, treating this as a blip. They still fight but pick their battles, seeking to preserve and conserve the order that came before. One such battle is playing out now. Democrats find themselves in an impossible position on government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. They fold to avoid blame for a shutdown, seeking to win the war, not the battle.

The other viewpoint is far more fragmented. It focuses on defending liberal values and moving toward a more progressive path. There is no clear guiding light here—just a desire to improve the lives of working-class Americans. It’s about being conservative but with progressive ideas to remake the system and fix what is broken. It’s liberal versus conservative, but with progressives wanting to do more. Both sides view their approach as correct. Parties normally fight over future direction; this time is no different. Radical revolution versus incremental change. Republicans underwent a similar process, and the result was Trump. Progressives view the defeat as another ignored warning shot. Conservatives see it as a minor setback that can be dealt with. They believe the changes can be undone once the worst impacts are felt.

Resist or Revolution?

Republicans have made it very clear this is a revolution. I don’t think that has dawned on many people yet—not voters, not either party. One thing both sides are missing is the fragmentation and push toward the fringe. This leads to more backsliding and shifting gravity. Why? The gaming of the system and the primary process mean pandering in the name of purity. The right has radicalized itself before. Political parties are not immune to outside influence, which shifts the mainstream toward fringe views.

Now, the online right has radicalized itself, causing mainstream center-right parties to shift further right. This empowers the far or alt-right, bolstering its support. This small group now believes in a reality based on an information diet of nonsense, engaging with a false world. Junk information is infecting voters and parties. What has happened in America is part of a global trend. Partisan politics are on steroids, and rage is spilling out. That’s the fragmentation happening naturally across the world. Both parties are moving away from the average voter.

In America, the online right has taken over the Republican Party. Calls to move toward the center and compromise are valid, but in a hyper-partisan world, purity becomes a liability. A wide tent can be useful for reinvention, but a small tent with purity above all else is dangerous. Democrats should learn from their opponents’ mistakes. They should listen to moderate voices, progressives, and voters’ desires. But that also means unclogging the system and making major constitutional changes. Here, Trump’s wrecking ball may be a blessing for the future. One key lesson is the information war—how one side has used it and been consumed by it. The other side is still fighting by the old rules. Cleaning up the information space and dealing with tech giants is a necessary evil. Democrats must also enter this alien world and do a better job engaging with folks outside their algorithm.

Resist or Fight Another Day?

I understand why people are angry at Democrats for not fighting, but it’s part of a much bigger problem: the lack of an opposition leader and failure to reinvent the party. Democrats now need to expand their appeal. Moderates and progressives can work together to find common ground and push for necessary changes. Trump has already shown his willingness to push his power to the limits. Democrats should have shut down the government and blamed him, focusing on inflation and the chaos he was causing.

A single message focusing on why the Democrats care and addressing voters’ fears would have been deeply risky, but the hope is Trump would do the damage for them. The biggest risk is fighting everything without being strategic. The obvious fight is over spending cuts and the debt ceiling, forcing Republicans to own it and creating conflict with figures like Musk. Another viewpoint is keeping powder dry until debt ceiling talks. It all comes down to partisan politics and the ability to rise above it or sink to it.

Authoritarian Turn: Everybody is Angry

The information war has evolved. People no longer get news from mainstream sources. Instead, mainstream media is downstream. Upstream feeds are dominated by certain groups, missing their voice. This allows them to set the tone and paint the narrative before Democrats can respond. That needs addressing because one side is talking to itself, unable to connect with the voters it needs. Democrats need plain-speaking messages that resonate with voters.

The problem is one side is setting the message and tone before the debate begins. What we now have are two opposing views: an illiberal but liberal elite seeking to destroy the liberal elite. They exploit the system they helped break to destroy it and rebuild it. Authoritarian power grabs are driven by extreme partisan views. It’s easy to destroy but much harder to create. The good news is the election cycle continues. The bad news is one side seems willing to give Republicans unlimited power, fearing they’ll be consumed by this revolution. Trump now wields king-like political power. The party of small government is fine with using that power however it pleases. But they haven’t considered what happens when the other side gets it. This authoritarian takeover shows no desire to yield power. That’s just my gut talking.

Falling for Radicalization as a Response

Democrats should avoid being radicalized like Republicans. As much as I like some figures being pushed as the answer, they are not the solution but part of the problem. They do, however, have some solutions to America’s woes. Sadly, most voters don’t share that instinct or ideological lean. Voters are complicated, often holding conflicting views. They base decisions on vibes, hearsay, and information from non-mainstream sources.

That last point is something Democrats need to address quickly. They must enter the rabbit hole—not to be consumed by it but to use it to deliver their message. I’m an outsider to American politics but no stranger to progressive versus moderate battles. My views lean progressive, but I think about politics differently than most voters, who often don’t. If you’re curious why Trump can get away with breaking the rules, that’s why. Voters care more about the price of eggs and gas. Democrats and their allies should start there and build a case against Trump. That also means winning the information war and quickly getting into the fight.

Journal, Politics

Don’t Panic: Time for Action on Ukraine

| admin

Don’t Panic: Time for Action on Ukraine

Calm heads are required. A knee-jerk reaction is a mistake. You should take your time, to consider and reflect. Failure to response to Russian aggression. Inaction is how we have got here. Europe as whole did not give Ukraine everything it needed to win. It tried to do half measures, to avoid economic pain. Russia war economy is overheating, it has been unable to take Ukraine. In the 3 years, progress has been painfully slow and stalled. What support we have given Ukraine has been a massive success. Now it seems the Americans have changed sides. Who could have seen that coming? Oh, I don’t know, it was in plain sight and obvious.

Europe and rest of the west should accept this what has happened. Learn from it mistakes. Warm words do not win wars. Action however does. What worries me is inaction and gravity pulling us in a direction that not in are interests. The last 3 years of policy look to be a failure. If you wanted Ukraine to win and this conflict between west and Russia to be contained. If not obvious we’re at war with Russia, that how they view it. Viewing it as a scale and willing to push but avoid what we consider all out war. So what should we be doing? Well, ramping up production, aiming to supply Ukraine. With the goal of domestic production. At the same time increasing defence spending and looking at replacing American’s ability in Europe. The goal here is building a new command centre with Europe in control and leading. Lots that need to be done here. That going to be longer term thing but required. Holding back on stronger sanctions for now unless something big happens. What is required, here, is going to be deeply painful.

What happened in the White House this week was shocking but a wake-up call. We have time to improve things. The price of peace is much higher than it was. Europe is rich and can pay that price. We may not like it, but we can do it. Otherwise, we’re heading towards war with Russia and going to end up unprepared. One bit of good news here, a formal war has not happened yet. I’m worried, yes, but half glass full we can avoid the worst of it. It does require paying the price to achieve peace we want and doing what is necessary.

Journal, Movies

James Bond Amazon gets control

| admin

James Bond Amazon gets control

I have written about James Bond in the past. Briefly wrote about the ownership. Small paragraph that worth revisiting.

The Broccoli family has diligently safeguarded control over the Bond franchise. Danjaq holds the copyright for the film series. The first twenty Bond movies are co-owned by Danjaq and MGM, while the remainder belong to Danjaq, MGM, and Columbia Pictures (a Sony subsidiary). Eon Productions, owned by the Broccoli family, meticulously oversees all Bond projects. Their level of control rivals J.K. Rowling’s veto power over the Harry Potter franchise.

Danjaq is owned and managed by Broccoli family, Eon Productions is also owned and operated by Broccoli. Franchise is creative direction and production is owned by this family. Why is that important? Well because we just got news that is changing.

Amazon MGM has gained control over creative control and production. Amazon MGM, Wilson, and Broccoli have come to an agreement. A new joint venture to house the property rights. All three remain co-owners, but creative control goes to Amazon. Ending 60 years of control for Wilson and Broccoli family. Both have retired from producing films. What does this mean for Eon productions? I have no idea. Looks like Sony has sold to Amazon. I can’t find anything on that just a guess.

So what does this mean?

Well, two producers protecting Bond legacy are gone. Made it clear they want theatre releases, not just prime only. Long stalemate after last release in 2021. Last year it was reported nothing was happening. It was an open secret that Broccoli and Amazon did not agree. For whatever reason, they have handled control over to Amazon. Giving up the fight but not the pay day if it works out. Bond brand could now appear anywhere, for years it was protected and guarded. Now a big tech company with a studio has full control. I’m worried yes.

It fine, I have my memories of bond and what it means to me. If they screw this up, I won’t watch it or buy anything. They have big shoes to fill.

Journal

Market complacency – Rubicon crossed in America

| admin

Market complacency – Rubicon crossed in America

In my view, the financial market’s complacency has me deeply worried. The focus has been on Trump tariffs. This is the second time Trump has attacked the machinery of government. He tried to freeze existing spending by executive order.  Quickly backtracked on that after 48 hours. You can read more here, here and here. Days later, Elon Musk’s minions have taken control of US treasury computer systems. Read more here, here and here. Taking over control of the machinery of the US government to control spending. Congress may have passed spending laws, but Musk can refuse to send the money. Unelected officials with no security clearance got control over America’s bank account. It amounts to a 21st-century coup. Purging officials who resist, who he does not agree with. Which was both efforts to control the purse is illegal and unconstitutional. Yet the market reaction is this is fine. 

Thought experiment: what would the global reaction be if this was another country? Outrage and punishment. Investors would be leaving on mass. The money would be flying out the doors. A bank run would most likely happen. This is beyond the imagination. It is not hard to see how the lack of pushback leads to Trump continuing, perhaps expanding his actions. Of course, even if this is temporary, the rubicon has been crossed. Passed the point of no return on a couple of norms. Elected officials should be worried. The most extreme outcome is the withholding of funds for support. Trump wants a constitutional change, no dollar until you support it.  What happens if the other side uses these powers? White House can bully whoever to do its bidding. They have been bypassed, willingly given up power. 

Struggling to understand the muted market reaction. Worst still Trump said he going to do this. Yet nobody believed him. Now he done it people have just shrugged. Coup de grace has happened yet nobody reacted. Only four groups that can stop Trump now. His cabinet can depose him. Congress and senate with supreme court are meant to act. Yet they are unlikely. Given the political risk and uncertainty surely that enough for markets to move?  Money men something Trump claims to focus on are not moving. That is puzzling.

Read more here

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.

Journal, Politics

Good man and bad president Jimmy Carter

| admin

Good Man and Bad President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was a good man but a bad president. He was also unlucky. A one-term president, he served during a time of deep crisis—some of his own making, others beyond his control. The weak economy of the 1970s, hit by multiple shocks, defined his presidency. The oil shock of the decade led to high inflation and unemployment, causing widespread dissatisfaction with his leadership. One of his key decisions was appointing Paul Volcker as Chair of the Federal Reserve. While Volcker’s policies eventually reduced inflation, the benefits and credit largely went to Carter’s successor.

Carter’s style of governance was rooted in attention to detail, micromanagement, and telling hard truths—often to his detriment. He presented himself as an outsider and acted in a more human, smaller role, akin to a head of state. Above all, he prioritised public service and duty for the greater good—a trait that defined his post-presidential years. A reformer and a strong defender of civil and human rights, Carter did some of his most important work outside the White House. He never allowed his presidency to define him. Avoiding the lucrative path of paid speeches, he focused instead on the hard work of progress.

Above all else, Carter was a public servant—modest and honest. His biggest flaw was his stubbornness as an outsider, which left him isolated and unable to work effectively with his own party. However, this same quality became a strength after leaving office. While his presidency is widely considered a failure, he laid the groundwork for his successors’ successes.

The Iranian hostage crisis exemplifies his misfortune. Carter authorised a daring but failed rescue mission, yet he worked tirelessly until the final minutes of his presidency to negotiate their release. The hostages were freed mere minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. This incident highlights Carter’s bad luck and the potential humiliation inflicted by Iran—though whether the delay was intentional or coincidental remains unclear. Carter’s hard work often went unrecognised, but he never sought the limelight. Years later he did win noble peace prize.

He reminds me of the late Queen Elizabeth II: a public servant above all else, never seeking to enrich himself and always maintaining modesty, even while occupying a grand office. After leaving office, Carter never pursued wealth. Instead, he used his influence with a deep sense of public duty. His approach to leadership reflected a more European style—dignified and understated, though occasionally outspoken. It feels almost poetic.

His successor, Ronald Reagan, was his complete opposite—a pattern that seems to repeat in history. The contrast is evident today with Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The latter, a criminal, represents a bad man and a bad president. Biden, much like Carter, is blamed for issues largely beyond his control. High inflation has tarnished his reputation, and his party struggles to craft a positive narrative. Biden is passing on a recovered economy, but without receiving the credit. It feels tragically poetic that Carter passed away before Trump takes office again.

Jimmy Carter lived to the remarkable age of 100, serving as the 39th President of the United States and outlasting many of his successors. Trump, set to become the 47th president, underscores Carter’s extraordinary longevity. Carter was the oldest living former president, a title that now passes to Joe Biden—who originally endorsed Carter early in his career. This full-circle moment connects the oldest president, the oldest former president, and now the oldest to take office. Both men have been heavily influenced by Christian values and beliefs.

My knowledge of Carter was rather limited until his death. I knew about his work building homes and that he was an outsider. I never saw him giving speeches or trying to make money. He was a low-key public servant even outside of office, and he earned my respect. He is one of the great post-presidencies, redefining what it means to serve after leaving office. Carter created a blueprint for others to follow. There will not be another one like him—American politics is too toxic and dysfunctional now. The age of good chaps and gentlemen is over. A former peanut farmer, Carter was a good man but a bad president—a shining light for how politicians should conduct themselves out of office.