Drayke Newall

I would dare say given LL disastrous effort (financially as well) in Sansar, they wont be looking at any new platform anytime soon.

And how are these 'unique' users/accounts calculated? They always seem to not include those explanations in articles or statements like these so it can make it sound impressive. Is it calculated as individual accounts that log in i.e. that 600,000 includes alt accounts? If this is the case then if you put on average each person having 3 accounts (2 alts and a main) then that is only 200,000 true 'unique' users. That's not so impressive anymore. If these 'unique' users don't include alt accounts then how are they determined to be 'unique'? If it is by IP address's then there is a flaw in this calculation as well. I can get a new IP every time I restart my router which I could do once a week in the month. Does that mean in a month I am counted as 4 'unique' users? There needs to be clarification of how these figures are determined otherwise they are meaningless. Also based on that article, the figures are terrible and would send any other business out wondering why they have such a hole in user retention. The article states that since 2013 they have had 36 million accounts created. Even if you remove alts from the equation and take that to mean actual people using their touted 600,000 user number, they have lost a total of 35.4 million accounts (users) over just 6 years. That means on average both LL and Second Life have lost 5.9 million users/accounts every year over the past 6 years. That is astonishing and shows they still have a major issue with user retention.

I agree and I find it interesting that almost everyone of the naysayers in this thread are saying fortnite this and fortnite that or no one company can build it due to restrictions blah blah. Epic Gaming (Tim Sweeny) have been looking into the metaverse for 3-4 years now and have even showcased what can be done with just one game, fortnite, with live music breaking records for that event as well and even making songs (sung at that event) number one on the RL music charts. In other words, for one event it took them less than a year to implement a system into a game not designed to host live music across multiple 'X people regions' (AKA just like second life has specifically being designed to do). Not only was it successful but, it out performed second life, had no issues and did what Second Life hasn't done since 2006 - generated hype and new users playing the game. Granted this is one game, however people are forgetting what Epic Gaming is. Epic IS NOT fortnite. Epic's core is its gaming engine that just happens to be still the best realistic gaming engine out (has been for years), that is easily scalable and allows games to be run in modern script languages. All they need is a VR hub with all games hosted by them, 5G and they would have close to a Ready Player One scenario. Even Steam has started this. By using their VR goggles you get your own little room/house which you can decorate and then all in VR, access multiple games through a teleport like interface albeit the games being on your PC. AKA Sansar except once again far better as they have AAA games and isn't just a static look at this museum type thing. The issue with second life is that it has missed its opportunity, is always slow to implement new systems and can not seem to get its revenue off of land rental. When there were calls for SL2 with updated scalable graphics and using a common script engine as opposed to LSL and rather than building on what SL already is, they made Sansar. A closed system that no one wanted, needed, or asked for and that has sub par graphics. If one looks at SL today and if all the issues as far as graphics and region crossings (i.e. just implement different sized land areas not just 256x256 which OpenSim do it easily with "Varregion") and rez time could be fixed (5G and load screens) you could get the following scenario: Mainland is converted into a metropolis of an optimised asset city which would be the landing/starting point of all avatars. Here would be the stores from many companies as well as rentals for the average joe (like the new linden home area). From this mainland metropolis you can then TP to various multi region places designed by either random people (using an inbuilt and updated optimised mesh creation system) or AAA companies (using 3rd party mesh created software). Experience tools (or something similar and better) would allow you to transport to these multiple gaming worlds seamlessly as your avatar etc. automatically change in seconds during the teleport so that you are in theme with those worlds. Standard currency that allows the purchase of items for any world/region or where you can convert them to that specific worlds currency. With even possible subscription fees applied to each gaming region/company if they so desire to keep a subscription model (e.g. update the group join fee system to allow for re-occurring fees/charges). A free region/home (just like steam does or sinespacce) that would allow anyone to start as LL would be getting income from other revenue streams such as the Mainland metropolis as well as from other gaming industries. The above is all possible even in the SL we have now however, there are a few issues with this. Region crossings, the fact that second life is run on LSL which hasn't seen a major update in years and the lack of LL putting restrictions on optimisation. The other major issue's are LL just not updating/implimenting quick enough with people having to request things like animesh and bento for years before LL listen compared to a system where THEY should be the ones thinking about these types of things. The last issue being refusing to add anything better from third party viewers such as better graphic options, in world animation creation etc. Is Second life going to die? No, as they have their core existing userbase. That said, with more and more of the newer generations not being interested in Second Life, LL will see a downturn in everything due to many more, more favourable systems being implemented.

Your implication of God knowing all possibilities and then we choose from those possibilities is not true free well. That is a cop out and nothing more. Considering he knows these possibilities before we even decide on them suggests that he has already outlined those possibilities and they cant be changed. You are putting faith in that those are the only possibilities. Suggesting something like that is the equivalent of reading a choose your own adventure novel, whereby the author (God) has written what paths are possible and I then make a choice from those. Sorry, not buying that. This is precisely why the topic as I mentioned has been argued by what I would assume (not trying to be mean) far more knowledgeable people than you or I over 3000 years. Just read what was posted in the links provided already in this thread by others as one of the philosophers even states what you state. As they put it he is outside of the timeline and can view all possibilities, but as mentioned by those very same links and the contradictions of the other philosophers, this has its problems due to you still having to make a choice of those pre-determined possibilities. I see. So, if someone has a degree in theology, has learned all meanings implied in the Greek or Hebrew texts (which in some cases are actually different to what is implied in the English version), read all the philosophical discussions of the church fathers and also knows the cross referencing of the Talmud, they preach it wrong? Interesting. I don't know your qualifications but to imply those with higher degrees and knowledge as saying things are wrong, says it all and only implies that you believe one thing yet many others believe it means something else. That is not knowledge or an answer, that is called interpretation. I'll copy a few of the church fathers understanding of the situation to show even they believed God knows the future and your choices. "For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice." Jerome (circa 347 – 420) "For it was not foreknowledge which justified people, but God knew what would happen to them, because he is God." Theodoret of Cyrus (circa 393 – 457) "It is not because God knows that something is going to be that that thing is going to be, but rather it is because it is going to be that it is known by God before it comes to be. For even if we imagine for the sake of argument that God does not foreknow anything it was without a doubt going to happen that, say Judas became a traitor, and this is just the way the prophets foretold it would happen. Therefore, it was not because the prophets foretold it that Judas became a traitor, but rather it was because he was going to be a traitor..." Origen (circa 185–254) All those in their own way state that God knew what was going to be as far as their decisions. The Judas one implies this especially as it shows that centuries before, God stated in prophecy, that he WAS going to betray Christ. In other words his sin was going to be absolute, irreversible and already made for him.

Actually there are many instances where it shows god as omniscient. To many for me to list and all can easily be found. They also don't come with a qualified circumstance. Additionally prophecy that it said comes from God implies he knows the future. That said I agree mainly with what Alwin said. The bible is part history of a civilisation as well as their ideologies of trying to explain the unknown at the time.

Lol. Don't even get me started of how the book of Job details how Satan has to ask Gods permission to tempt Job, thereby leading to the thought or reasoning that does this mean that Satan also asked permission to tempt Eve in the first place. Whilst the book of Job puts forth this reasoning and every other person would state that seeing as it is written it is evidence and fact (as well as him asking the same permission in Peter), people still say 'oh that was a unique case'. Given this arguable evidence then, despite even the free will issue, God would have known what was going to befall mankind and even worse possibly gave permission for it to happen.

Of cause they languished, they were at war for 3 years already when America entered and even when taking into account their occupied territories the USA still had a population of almost double Germany. Also the bombing of Dresden was a huge blow to Germany as it was their manufacturing and industrial capital where many of the resources for continued war effort and development were produced. Utter rubbish. Germany was far more advanced in nuclear technology than America by miles and much of their research etc was all done within the war years and before America had even thought about it. It is why America started their Manhattan project, to compete with the already well advanced Nazi's. Germany had proven four ways of separation of Uranium Isotopes compared to America's effort. By 1942 Germany was using low yield sub-kiloton nuclear warheads at the Russian front as evidenced by intercepted Japanese signal documents and these nuclear warheads where all created without uranium enrichment. Germany also by wars end had developed the Zentner-76 nuclear bomb of which British troops found evidence of in 1945 (this however is refuted by British and American governments despite the very soldiers that found it stating the bomb, centrifuges and reactor are real) and was capable of creating nuclear bombs that used less fission material than the ones created by America. The Betatron enrichment facility beat the Manhattan project by 1 year in nuclear enrichment and by 1944 rumoured to generate enough to make 1 Hiroshima sized bomb every 2 months. Their ultracentrifuge's were also very advanced compared to others with Britain after the war capturing and operating one for quite a while. Additionally, Germany tested their Atomic bombs (albeit dirty) almost a full year prior to America at Rugen Island (only one picture has surfaced of this taken by a German scientist present), whereby decades after the war Caesium 137 was still present and bulldozed into the sea to remove it (even though this is disputed). Such tests were reported by eyewitnesses such as Elisabeth Mestlin on 12 October, 1944. They conducted similar tests in other areas and were looking at methods of creating 2nd and 3rd generation detonation devices. Nazi Germany's 2 top nuclear scientists patented 40 nuclear weapon designs all within the WW2 period that were used after the war by American and French scientists to develop tactical nuclear warheads. Wartime nuclear physicist Prof Diebner was also in the 50's recruited by the American and French to show them how to make warhead devices. All while making these advancements in Nuclear warfare they were also looking into uranium powered engines for their vehicles as well as developing many more devices that are used today in modern technology. The ONLY thing that stopped Hitler utilizing atomic bombs on England was the destruction of a ferry by Norway's resistance which carried heavy water that was needed for their completion. This was even stated by those involved in Germany's nuclear program after the war as the contributing reason why their reactor project stopped in its tracks. So yes, as you say, Nazi Germany only kept 'some uranium cubes in the basement'. 🙄 As to the rest of your post, not going to bother. EDIT: The main issue with all of Germany's war time nuclear program is it was seized by the ally governments and many are still classified. It is well known however many of the Nazi scientist have been employed over the years to advance or show America etc how to do things due to their knowledge gained during WW2 Nazi scientific programs. There is a picture of the explosion test as well as the Japanese signal documents however very little has been released or shown. Even the ferry of Heavy Water was only recently discovered. The other issue is that the ally governments refute all of this despite eyewitness accounts of seeing these things all around. Sure, granted, it could be made up, but with stories and people actually finding things like the ferry and heavy water under the north sea that was talked about by Nazi scientists one has to wonder... EDIT2: Just for reference and source, here are some declassified US documents tell of US pilots visually seeing what would later be observed as the classic a-bomb mushroom cloud. Was also seen by an Italian reporter sent by Italy's dictator to view the "new weapon". https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/771096/nazi-germany-nuclear-bomb-testing-blitz-world-war-ii-secret-intelligence-documents

No, I meant Omniscient. Omniscient is the term used for being all knowing. Omnipotent is the term used to describe a being as all powerful. Unrelated, is Omnipresent where God is everywhere at the same time. These are the 3 Omni words to describe what encompasses Gods entire power. This issue with Omniscience is that with God being all knowing, that is to say; knowing the past, present and future and all things, Free Will becomes an issue. It has been argued for millennia as to how Omniscience and Free Will can exist together. This is why the article linked by Scylla incorporates philosophers theories dating back to before the 13th century. The foremost reason why it is argued, is because if god is all knowing (Omniscient) he then knew that before the fall or creating the universe; Eve would eat the apple, pass it to Adam, mankind would fall, sin would enter, mankind would be punished and that suffering and gracelessness would exist until he would sacrifice his only son. To put it another way if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.

Where on earth did you come to the conclusion I have grievances against women and queer folks? You asked which movement I meant and I specifically told you the feminist movement and explained the history of gender pronouns. All of what I posted is fact and can be researched by yourself. To imply through what I wrote that I am a misogynist or against LGBT (despite not even knowing my gender or my lifestyle), reinforces my previous point I made that some people do exactly what I wrote, that is "don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life."

Feminist movement. This was the main time period of actual looking into it. There were some people (mainly women) that proposed it in the 1880's to use 'they' as gender neutral however, was never accepted as grammatically correct as the prominent grammarians of the time stated exactly what I wrote in my post that it was to awkward in conjunction with its use with they/them/their etc., as plural and its accepted singular form referring to specifically an unknown gender. When that fell flat it wasn't until the 1970-80's that another push for gender neutrality and pronouns were looked into as I mentioned before and 'they' was once again proposed to a far larger audience. It is also from this period that I would say is the reason there is today a huge backlash against gender pronouns today as during that period over 80 were suggested and many of these 80 are used as scare tactics for them not to be accepted. For example when gender pronouns were suggested a few years ago there were many debates and articles about how it means learning over 100 pronouns etc. Gender neutrality even began to enter into politics and writings by certain influential feminist writers. That said, even from then it was only used in small circles until the 2010's when there was a large push for LGBT rights. It was during this period that more and more people pushed for gender neutrality and pronouns and work began to establish which ones to use. The problem that is still present however, is that a clear definition of what pronouns to use hasn't been made or approved as people keep making up new ones. Due to this I would dare say it will be still debated for quite a while until the LGBT group can specify a single pronoun set to encompass all. If you want to go back even further around the mid 1700's there was a desire from a few prominent persons (even some men) to have 'he' as gender neutral, however, when the 14th amendment was established there was a realisation that this was not going to be the case as to counteract this for the first time the word male was specifically used in the document rather than the usual he. The problem that has always been with the pronoun movement is that no specific single set of pronouns can be agreed upon. One singular set would be far easier to implement into English and remember than the 3 or 4 that keep being thrown about, changed etc., or the change of use of pre-existing words like 'they' that have grammatical complications as I posted about. As an aside if your interested in what pronouns have been suggested and why one set can never be agreed upon refer to this archived website. https://web.archive.org/web/20120215101445/http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/epicene.htm

😩 That form of 'they' is not how you are implying it. Did you actually read what singular they means in my post above? If I have seen a person and know he is male I would say he. If I hadn't met the person and didn't know their gender I would use they. Why do people think that this isn't how it has always been. They in the use of identifying a person as a gender was majorly first proposed in the 80's as part of a certain movement and it is only since around 5 years that it is being proposed again as a pronoun to identify a specific gender. So no it isn't brand new, however the meaning implied or wanting to be implied now is. Just because someone 'colloquially' (read as grammatically incorrect) says it doesn't mean it is correct. Just as, many Americans use 'then' instead of 'than' doesn't mean they are correct or doing it 'colloquially'.

I have no issue with the evolution of language or even if there is an evolution of language to insert new words, it happens all the time, every year. I do object however, to the evolution of a word that has been and is used in a different pretence. This is where it would be confusing. As far as your thesis was concerned to refer to an unknown gender you would use the singular they. It is the correct way and always has been. I mentioned in my post that 'the' is the encompass all gender within the English language. When the four words 'they', 'them', 'their' and 'there' are broken down to their primary form the word 'the' is apparent as bolded. Any change introduced to accommodate these new ideals of gender pronouns must also apply to these as this is how language works. Presently those words can be used singularly to show an unknown gender in the English language as 'the' is the encompass all pronoun created centuries ago i.e. "do they have a dog?", "is it them?", "perhaps its their dog?" and "there is a body". This is not gender neutrality of any sort in modern pretence, never has been. It is the equivalent of someone coming to me and saying "Francis did that" and given Francis/es verbally has the same sound of the female or male name varient I would reply "did they?" seeing as I don't know Francis and have never seen them to visualise their gender. That is singular they/them/their in its true definition. It is not 'gender neutrality' as implied by advocates but 'gender unknown' If one was to link those four words to a specific gender as gender neutrality/pronouns implies then the use of they would become confusing. With regards to your thesis as an example the reader would have to interpret whether you are talking about an unknown gender hypothetically or as in the Francis analogy before mentioned or, are you implying that Francis has decided to have no/both gender as modern gender pronouns advocates desire. In certain circumstances depending what your thesis was about either of these interpretations could alter the reasoning or conclusion of your thesis' meaning. I am perfectly fine with people make up pronouns, go for it, but don't change the meaning of a word to then make it mean 2 things that are interpreted entirely different depending on how they are read and don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life. EDIT: Also apologies I made a mistake in my previous post (the line you quoted) the gender neutral pronoun we have in English is 'it' not 'the'. But 'it' as a general neutral pronoun is apparently demeaning despite it specifically meaning of something that has no gender. "go read it (implying a book)" the book having no gender. This is the difference between singular 'they' meaning unknown and 'it' meaning no gender. But even here there would lie a problem how do you interpret "it read it". Or "they read him like a book" instead of "She read him like a book". The first would imply plural they but if changed to modern gender neutrality could also imply a single person. I'm also not trying to be demeaning or mean no offence when I wrote this just trying to explain the complexities of such a change.

Fully agree and is why in my first post I said the more interesting question is: What would have happened if Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor. Hitler knew full well not to awaken what was called the sleeping giant and went to immense effort to ensure this didn't happen. What he failed to foresee is one of his allies that wasn't part of the EU war was stupid enough to try and poke the sleeping bear.

But once again it is not just that simple. Germany did have a large navy however it was decimated in the invasion of Norway in April 1940 whereby they lost half of their fleet meaning 20 destroyers and 3 cruisers. The fleet at the time achieved its mission, however at the destruction of the German navy. It was at this time that it was decided to redivert their funds to stealth naval warfare hence their reliance on U-boats and turn their tactic to stopping British supply lines. The Bismarck was launched after their fleet had been already severely reduced in size. Originally there were also plans to build air-craft carriers and more destroyers/battleships etc, however with no protection from the reduced fleet this meant that it would have been impossible for Germany to protect its bigger naval assets. Given the amount of controlled land Germany had, they had the resources to produce really anything without naval means of supply, however the time it would have taken to rebuild their fleet after Norway would have taken to long for it to be worthwhile. I do agree however that once USA entered the war with its manpower as well as supply line protection from Germany as well as Russia from the west Germany could never win. EDIT: Whether however they could have won against USA only without having to split their force on two fronts, was a possibility however we will never know.

Sorry but this isn't correct at all as far as USA vs Germany goes. Germany was ahead in EVERY field be it science, aviation, technology, machinery, medical and industrial and they certainly did capitalise on it. They conquered Europe and then some. You also must remember that (Nazi) Germans were the first to split the atom, first to build a missile and rocket, first to discover things medical, the list goes on. Even the man that was mainly responsible for building the rocket that put a USA man on the moon was a Nazi scientist. Additionally (despite the negative aspects and ideologies of Nazi Germany), Germany's conquest of Europe as far as speed and tactic goes is one of the greatest military achievements in history. They conquered half of Europe in 8 months.. EIGHT. Pushing the allies' (inc. England and France) entire military to a small beach and then in another 2 years had conquered the ENTIRTY of Europe and even then went on to push back the Russian border to Moscow. It took Rome one of the greatest empires and military strength of Europe at its prime centuries of fighting to not even conquer one third the territory Germany did. What you have failed to calculate or realise is that when the USA entered the war Germany had already been fighting for 3 years and much of their industrial strength had been depleted. As far as navy goes, why would Germany need a big navy? They were conquering land and used missiles that were capable of hitting England from France. It was also never the naval assets that won the war against Germany. Japan maybe, but not Germany. Also keep in mind the USA didn't win the war even though many Americans think they did. Sure they helped and were a huge reason why the war was won but it was the rash decision of Hitler attacking Russia and breaking the neutrality alliance he had with them that lost the war. Nazi Germany would have won easily if they were defending one front, but they were defending 2 and lost due to this. To put it another way, it took the sheer manpower of millions of troops from both Russia and America to win a war against a small country like Germany. That in itself should say a lot. As much as we all (including me) despise Hitler, Nazism, their ideologies, their crime and believe they were evil monsters, don't belittle Germany's (as the country), dare I say it, magnificent achievements due to the ideals and crimes of a few men. As to the OP's question, Who knows though I would suspect it to be similar to how England and Northern Ireland were with regards to the resistance and terrorism. That said, I am more interested in the theory of what would have happened if Japan never bombed America. EDIT: AS an aside I want to make it clear I in no way support Nazism, Hitler what he did, how he did it or his and his cronies ideologies. However, people seem to forget that Germany and many of its population didn't believe in what Hitler did or what he was doing, however had no choice but to do it.

The conversion or as you imply it 'simplification' over time of English is indeed fascinating especially relating to the written styles as it evolved. That said, the implication in the episode you linked that English no longer uses gender as part of its spoken or written language is not the case at all. The masculine gender and feminine gender are still there, however, in many cases we removed the awkwardness and the convolution of the language and simply made 'the' to encompass both genders of he and she. This is why we simply say 'the woman' or 'the man' as opposed to German (for comparison as it is easier to show than old English) whereby they would say 'der Mann' or 'die Frau'. Both ways mean the same, however 'the' in English is the simplification of the gender pronoun into a single all encompassing word. Whilst 'the' become all encompassing, we still do very much so use the gender neuter 'it' to imply an object that specifically doesn't have a gender in itself or in other special situations where it does. This is why we would call a chair 'it' and in all technicalities is why a dog is also 'it' even though usually we would just say 'the dog' with the being all encompassing or refer to its specific gender (notice I used its and not their in relation to the dog). To further show this and how gender is still used in modern English there are unique examples where the gender follows a different path. For instance it is never correct to refer to a ship or machine (both not having a gender) as 'it' despite them both being an object. You would say "she's a beautiful ship" not "its a beautiful ship" this implies that, whilst in some cases has been simplified for the better, gender itself is still very much alive in modern English. As to current trends in wanting gender neutrality. This is not the same as gender in English or Old English at all. That is to say, gender neuter (or the feminine and masculine genders in language) does not mean gender neutral even though they are often confused and used by those wanting gender neutrality as evidence to support their cause. Both are distinct and separate areas entirely not related to each other just like in other languages such as German. That is to say, whilst in Old English generally words referencing a female would have the female gender imposed on them, there were also vast swathes of words that didn't despite being related to female and this is the same with modern languages that still use gender in the language such as German. To show this, as an example, in old English the word 'hiredwifmon' which means a female member of a household is masculine and therefore would adopt in Old English the masculine gender pronoun and not the feminine. Likewise the word for woman 'wifmann' was in fact a gender neuter meaning it had no gender associated. This is the same in German where it would be 'das weib' and not the feminine 'die weib'. To put it another way using German as an example, 'der hund' meaning 'the dog' uses the masculine pronoun even when referencing a female dog. Tl:dr: Gender in English ≠ gender neutrality and for those wishing for gender neutrality pronouns, English already has one 'the' so why make up more. English is already one of the most complicated languages adopting words from almost every language back to the B.C. era so why are we trying to make it even more complicated by finding new pronouns that isn't just one new word but all their related connotations such as when referencing them in past, present and future etc.

If they stay in the EU like they want or re-apply might want to see where that oil goes.

Sorry, I edited my post before you posted, I clarified without help from other countries. That said I do agree that they have been pushed out. Though with Northern Ireland relying so heavily on being a tax haven for companies, once laws are passed to restrict offshore tax processing from major companies like google, I would worry about how that would impact on their economy which is only just recovering. Shame about Wales. I'm sure my grandmother would stand by you in wanting it independent.

True, and agree. That said, steps could have been taken for it to be an easier process and would have allowed both UK and EU to proceed without to much impact on both sides economically. As it stands now, both are possibly set to see a downturn in their economy as one finds independence again and the other looses its 2nd highest contributor to its economy. Also, don't get me wrong, about the UK I believe independence should be sought and gained by Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I just wish those respective countries could find a method to support themselves independently without outside help so as these things can happen.

But you have to wonder why this was the case. If you look at 2016 approximately 14 countries were looking at leaving with favourable polls indicating public support. The one clause all these countries stated was "lets wait and see what happens when the UK try". Is it any wonder why such polls now show a reverse in secession with the difficulty the EU has imposed on the UK trying to leave? This 'force' applied by the EU on UK and the ramifications of them refusing free trade agreements to continue etc, could be argued as the EU's tactic to ensure these other countries don't leave.

Be that as it may, until Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can support themselves independently from the coat tails of England's wealth any such independence talk or actuality of such notions happening are slim. Also no one is trying to compare it to Nazism, the map was an interesting reflection on comparing the two at the height of their power showing similarities in territorial claim. One must also keep in mind that the EU originally started as an Economic union solely to allow trade and monies to flow freely across Europe. It has now though, since around 2014, being politicised whereby the union is starting to interfere with each independent democracies sovereign right. The forcing of EU immigration laws relating to Refugee intake are an example of this and was a direct contributor to the UK's response, to leave. Additionally, given that all imports are controlled and disbursed by the EU, some countries are of the opinion that they are not getting their fair share leading downturns in their economy. This was a primary reason for Greenland as a Territory leaving the EU in 1986 due to issues with fishery laws the EU were trying to impose and successfully did after Greenland left. Fun fact, all of England's fish in its own territorial waters are fished and then sent to EU for distribution. Australia was a key provider of sugar to England (offering it cheaper than any one could due to Australia being a commonwealth nation) before them joining the EU and yet silos that once were filled with sugar stand empty.

It took Britain 3 years to come to an agreement, reluctantly I might also add. That said it was peaceful, though if you listen to recordings of EU parliament sittings, many are hostile to the British representatives etc. Whilst yes some of that falls on UK parliament, the EU from memory refused a proposal taking 1 year to draft and vote on, reduced timeframe requests, blocked various trade negotiations and possible deals. Made the Ireland - Britain border a contentious issue that could have ramifications on England's security etc. Basically the EU wanted to keep its second-largest economy, the country with the third-largest population and its second-largest net contributor to the EU budget. Just because they allow the peaceful withdrawal, doesn't mean they will make it easy in an effort to keep what they have. There are always other ways to apply 'force' that doesn't involve violence.

Britain would disagree with this statement...

Quick go flag the RL hair dresser for copyright infringement...

Whilst I did know what you were talking about, it still may become an issue. At the moment as far as I can see there isn't that many 'gacha machine' type listings on marketplace. If however creators start catching on to this MP gacha machine method I wouldn't be surprised if it does become just as spammy. Also, I would like to point out something that you seem to have overlooked about my post. If this so called 'MP gacha machine' method is allowed then Linden Lab should be forcing those listings to use the gacha category. Two of those that I posted (and many more I didn't post) that you refer to and the link from those that you posted in your response to me are listed under Avatar Accessories. Whilst yes, they may be avatar accessories, if you are going to make them into a gacha system, be it reseller or creator driven, you should automatically loose the right (be penalised) to place them in any other category other than Gacha. MP is already a mess with miscategorised items, wrong listings, scams etc. I do not want to have to add the new "MP Gacha Machine" to the growing list of items to flag. If LL did their job properly in the first place, there should be very little need for relying on their customers to flag items clogging up support channels that should be used for genuine issues. Adding even more reasons to flag is only going to grow the ever expanding consumer response of "I give up and can't be bothered flagging anymore". Edit: Thought I would edit just to focus on what you typed here. No it is not a separate issue. If they are bypassing the system somehow then LL have failed in their coding to ensure that such bypassing cannot happen. You don't release a new filter without making sure that filter cant be bypassed as it defeats the purpose of that filter and means if this is true, given LL track record on progress time we may see a fix in 2 years.