To say that you know something implies a very high level of certainty. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, that I need air to breathe and water freezes at 0 degrees. No one “knows” how society will be shaped in 20 years time, so no we do not know how it will be used and who will benefit.
Can you tell me next weeks lottery numbers too?
That is the likely outcome but its by no means certain. If you’d have asked in 1800 its likely people would have said the aristocracy would get all the benefit from industrialisation but that ended up not being how things went
London wasn’t the centre of a global empire in 1960 either, but it was still one of the main global financial centres. The fact that GBP isnt as important as the euro or USD isnt really a factor there as far as I understand (that’s more important to the British government and how much leeway it has in monetary and fiscal policy).
I mean London has been one of if not the centre of finance for what 300 ish years? Being part of the EU was definitely a plus and losing that has likely caused some business to move away but its not like London was a bit player in finance until it joined the EU in the 70s, seems natural to think it will remain a large player afterwards, if not as large as if it stayed in the EU.
I absolutely believe this is an absolute requirement in order to dismantle Hamas.
Its very noble of you to stand up for starving millions of people to achieve your desired political outcome, bravo.
Really most people thank you for being an annoying pedant who isnt even correct?
You cant say “the worst” when talking about an uncountable group, you have to say “the least good” because I prefer that and it makes me sound smart by correcting you. Apparently that is sufficient for it to be understanding language and for you to be wrong.
I do beg your pardon, it was Georgian not Victorian era when this nonsense was dreamed up for no reason other than preference for trying to cram Latin-esque cases into english.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-genuine-rule-dictates-the-use-of-less-or-fewer-cs25kv8s5
The very notion of a neat distinction between fewer and less according to whether the noun is countable or not is a myth. It was invented out of whole cloth by an ill- informed 18th-century pedant called Robert Baker in his book Reflections on the English Language (1770). He proposed this distinction not as a hard-and-fast rule of grammar, moreover, but as a tentative suggestion with caveats (“I should think . . . it appears to me . . . ”) that you won’t find in modern style guides.
The wiki article on it notes that
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage notes that the “pressure to substitute fewer for less seems to have developed out of all proportion to the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results”. It describes conformance with this pressure as a shibboleth and the choice “between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less” as a stylistic choice.
i.e. it is a shibboleth for saying “I am educated unlike you uncultured lot who use natural sounding language”
The less/fewer distinction is arbitrary Victorian bullshit flying directly in the face of how English is used. The only point of it was to try and make English more like Latin and allow aristocrats who spoke Latin to look down on those without expensive private education.
Please dont perpetuate it.
The problem with this isn’t the legal language of “climate crisis which may or may not exist in the world at the moment”, that’s just standard legal speak. The problem is the judge asserting that that whether it exists or not is irrelevant to the case and by doing so attempting to deny the protestors of their defence. Its a fairly open secret that the government has been leaning on the judiciary to crack down on climate protests and be as harsh as possible on them.