neonix

I was thinking about this myself recently. Ironically, i think passing a draft through an LLM could be a reasonable way to remove these signatures, if one could stomach the stylistic homogenisation.

There's always a relevant xkcd! But I didn't suggest creating a new political party.

This article perfectly illustrates the crisis of representation when a 'workers' party' becomes indistinguishable from the capitalist state. Labour isn't losing support because voters are confused; they're losing it because the material reality of austerity (cutting winter fuel and disability benefits) has exposed the party's true function: managing capital, not protecting labour. Reform is filling the vacuum by channeling that legitimate class rage into nationalist scapegoating rather than challenging property relations. The takeaway isn't that workers are 'far-right,' but that they've correctly identified Labour as an enemy of their class interests. Until the working class builds independent political power outside the Westminster duopoly and focusses on material demands over cultural distractions, this drift toward reactionary populism will only accelerate. We need to stop looking for saviors in parliament and start organising for ourselves.

Solidarity!

The implication that patient data is being "sent to Palantir" is misleading; the data remains in UK systems, but NHS England (not the wider UK-wide NHS) has granted Palantir contractors "unlimited" admin access to view raw, identifiable patient records directly. This creates a dangerous loophole where external US staff can bypass standard, granular privacy checks simply because obtaining individual permissions was deemed "too inconvenient."

This is a fundamentally poor decision. Granting sweeping administrative privileges to a foreign intelligence-linked firm is a lazy shortcut that prioritises engineering ease over patient safety. By dismantling strict access controls to save time, NHS England has unnecessarily exposed millions of patients to risk, undermining the very principle of knowing exactly who accesses sensitive health data.

There's an area of research producing "quantum ready encryption", which uses algorithms that are believed to be secure against quantum attacks. There's been no wholesale migration to this yet, and the protection remains hypothetical until the attacks actually happen.

I seem to remember reading it's so named because only the "G" in the (roughly) RGB cones are stimulated, so a 0-1-0 mapping onto the R-G-B colour space. 0-1-0 > olo.

Seems like there's some good advice already in this thread for what might come next for you. I had no issues with the website on my mobile. (I like the aesthetic!) Props to you for choosing a tech stack and a goal and putting something into the world 😄 Keep it up!

Labour’s new policies sound good on paper (more public rail, greener energy, free childcare and a bigger NHS) but they still rely on the state to squeeze extra money out of workers through higher taxes. In practice, that extra cash ends up funding the same system that keeps private owners in charge, so the everyday worker sees only modest improvements while the underlying power balance stays the same.

In short, Labour is offering a series of "nice‑to‑have" fixes that ease some pressures on ordinary people, but they don’t challenge the deeper structure that lets a wealthy few control the economy. If they truly want a fairer society, they'll need to go beyond incremental reforms and push for real public ownership and democratic control of key industries, not just more spending from the same tax pot.

Thank you for the extra context, that's useful to form a better rounded opinion on the situation.

This was apparently an unapproved unilateral action: https://reddthat.com/post/50303806

The paid‑for “membership portal” appears not to be a democratically ratified decision but a unilateral move by Zarah Sultana, imposed on a movement that promised collective ownership of its direction. By turning entry into a £5‑a‑month subscription, the party treated political belonging as a commodity, reproducing the market logic it claims to oppose and alienating volunteers who expect free, universal access to a socialist organisation. This top‑down imposition sidestepped the pre‑figurative principle of participatory decision‑making and reinforced a Westminster‑style habit of fundraising through mandatory fees rather than genuine solidarity.

A more socialist approach would replace the subscription with a voluntary‑donation model built on transparency and collective control: open‑ended contributions, tiered solidarity pledges tied to specific grassroots projects, and worker‑run funding circles that let supporters decide how money is allocated. By treating money as a means of sustaining collective activity, not as a gate‑keeping ticket, the party could align its finances with democratic planning, reinforce accountability, and turn fundraising itself into a concrete expression of socialist solidarity.