Right wing as in the appointment process specifically excludes candidates that hold progressive views.

I read a great blogpost from a barrister about it earlier this year but I didn’t bookmark it. If I can find it later today I’ll post it. Basically it collated a number of worrying instances in which the chair of the Judiciary Appointment Committee, clearly states that he blocks appointments for ‘activist judges’ or non establishment orthodoxies.

Similar themed article

You should. Very well written comedy. Hasn’t really aged that much.

I was there today supporting those that were escalating the protest. There were some silly arrests amongst all the ‘legitimate’ arrests. One guy got arrested for singing a song ridiculing the proscription and a young girl got detained for an hour who was there in a supporting role like myself but a cop hallucinated that she had made the statement.

These things are always pretty chaotic. There was a guy shouting obscenities sitting outside the courthouse today. I don’t know if he had tourettes or was a belligerent drunk, he wasn’t part of the protest. Anyways, I’m certain some of the cop’s recordings will have him chuntering on in the background which will be amusing if they have to be played in court.

It was inspirational seeing so many people making heartfelt speech’s about this slide into tyranny, putting their own liberty on the line.

We don’t actually have a lot of confidence that the Supreme Court will deliver a better decision. But we have to get turned back there before we can take this to the European Court of Human Rights where we will have a much better chance of not having an institutionally ring wing judge.

Would it have been over the line to chant death to the Nazis while they were industrially murdering people?

None of that is as near a worrying issue as the environmental destruction from their resource hungry data centers; the surveillance systems they enhance; or the wars they help prosecute.

My point in the first post is that your idea of what constitutes a rare book will be fairly different to how an actual archivist sees it. It is very very unlikely that the tech bros can get their hands on books that are not held in multiple museums/libraries/archives. That has been the collection policy since a couple of very important archives got flooded in the mid C20th.

Even the breaking up of books isn’t unusual. All the archives taking part in digitising projects will have a program where old books with overly tight text blocks are broken up for the scanning process then rebound (just as the majority of very old books have had done multiple times over their lifetime) afterwards. Most modern books with adhesive bindings, and sufficient extant copies, will just get thrown in the recycling after scanning as they are not as archively important enough to warrant the outlay of resources to rebind.

In an ideal world we wouldn’t be destroying any books but preserving books has an embodied cost, financially and environmently, so archivists have to deside how much is ring fenced. They have been doing this for decades now so the tech bros won’t be able to get their hands on anything the archivists haven’t already assessed as surplus to requirements.

From an archival point of view, nothing that they’re destroying doesn’t exist in numerous libraries. Yes, destroying rare books isn’t good but archives the world over will hold copies of these tomes.

If this was an actual concern archivists the world over would be shouting about it. In my experience they are rabid protectors of our material heritage. In reality they see digitisation as a significant part of the preservation of that heritage.

As an example: paper production went through a crisis 1800 - 1850; it used to be made from discarded cotton cloth (and was of high quality); but by 1800 not enough old cloth could be sourced to satisfy demand; so they started to make paper from pulped wood; which was very bad as it contained lignin which is acidic; but it took years to figure this out; in western archives are lots of books and newspapers turning into confetti from that period; we can save some material from that period by washing out the acidity and lining the pages with very thin, very strong Japanese tissue; it just isn’t economically viable to save all extant copies of some mass produced book/newspaper; better to preserve some select holdings in special repository libraries and digitise it for posterity.

There are way more important issues to get riled around the arseholes developing AI and the data centres they demand. This is just rage baiting.

Who’s Gilgamesh bro💔?

The spelling difference was subtle.

Lot of this going around.

Yeah much better for his own growth if he stuck around and holds his hands up to criticism

…and, sometimes you just want to plant your teeth in those cheeks.

Just another few seconds of the sperm whale trying to chew and swallow its meal

A smidgen

There isn’t much more of it

In itself, it is characteristic of liberalism to consider that everything that is radical is a risk to freedoms control, and therefore that the far right and the far left, the “two extremes” that “go too far”, must be fairly excluded:)

Extreme centrism isn’t about liberty for all. It’s about covertly manipulating people so that they reflexively shun beliefs or lifestyles that may lead them to be noncompliant to the establishment’s orthodoxy. Liberty is only reserved for the powerful and the high achieving administrators within their conformist delimited meritocracy.

They are at their core far right in their belief in hierarchy and contempt for human rights. They just believe in throwing society into a pot of cold water and slowly heating it up. This they see extracts more value and reduces the risks of push back.

The traditional far right throw society straight into the fire. Extreme centrists reject them for being gauche and showing their hand not for any material divergence of belief.

Which is ironic given that people here are upset about that mod forcing their political biases onto others.

Basically

• First they came for the communists —totally cool

• Then they came for my outgroup — wtf!!

I studied paper conservation so this is technically out of my wheelhouse. But while I was doing my MA we had an external tutor come in and demonstrate how to conserve various synthetic paints. The problem you’re having is the pigment has become friable as the solvent has evaporated. It may be possible to replace some of that lost solvent by exposing the signature to the right solvent in a gas chamber (stuff that you should leave to a professional conservator that works in this medium). The signature will still be susceptible to being abraded off so a cover would be needed. Preferably one that doesn’t contact the signature.

Professional conservation work is not cheap so you’d need to get a quote and judge if it is worth it to you.

It looks like the solvent from the ink has stained the case which will be more permanent than the friable pigment. You could just accept that the pigment is going to fall off and live with the signature’s underlying stain (though you’d still probably be wise to put a clear case on the phone to reduce the abrasion caused by handing and pocket storage). Be aware that the stain may become less recognisable with age (like an old tattoo) as the solvent spreads on the case.

If you are keen to try to fix it yourself the most important thing to do is get your hands on the exact same marker and a similar substrate as the phone body to test any proposed solutions. Give any test time to show itself. I relabeled thousands of books in an archive with a permanent archival pen then put adhesive clear covers over them, after five years none of those labels are readable anymore as the solvent in the adhesive made the ink spread. They were fine while I still worked there but I was getting some stink eye when I paid visit those five years later.

But an entirely expected direction of travel.