Those "computer-generated images of how xxxxx may have looked" are bloody ridiculous aren't they.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce86jzgxxy4o

I really wouldn't be so sure. It's an established methodology; the computer generated stuff isn't AI so much as a modernised version of the old plasticine and measurements methods.

I may be being unfair to the people who do this work but anything they come up with can never be checked so how do we know if the resultant images are any better than a random face?

I suppose a test might be to give, say, five top facial image makers the same basic information: skull shape, DNA, etc. and let them independently create their images. If they all look quite similar then, fair enough I'd find that convincing.

A Celtic/Romano/British skeleton that may have originated in Mongolia, Zambia. the moon or Argentina is news. But then as now, coming from Eastbourne is not news unless accompanied by a picture, preferably one fairly easy on the eye.

Top marks to the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/17/beachy-head-woman-may-be-local-girl-from-eastbourne-say-scientists

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

FTFY

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.

This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.

Down here in the South, there are a lot of homes being built but not the facilities like schools and doctors to go with it. There seems to be some sort of belief "if you build it, they will come" - or the s106 monies are being redirected to something else.

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.

Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

Just so I’m clear. You would agree any application irrespective of whether it contravened the guidelines on density and height laid out in the Local Plan of which any developer would be fully aware.

Let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the “we have to build” argument. Most of these no doubt well appointed little boxes will be far out of the reach of the people who need housing - those on housing waiting lists, families in one room, those people. If you want to solve the housing crisis and improve the quality of life for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, build new houses and flats and sell them to local councils for £1 per unit and then let the council allocate them to the people who need them.

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

The combination of private developers and private transport companies doesn’t work. Regulation of both is essential.

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

This is what modern Labour govt should be for. Fingers crossed they can push this through. I expect big opposition to exempting small sites from biodiversity net gain. The guardian are likely to hate the fact that instead of affordable homes on site, developers can pay councils for them somewhere else.

Also the granny flat changes are huge. Maybe the biggest thing we can do for social care (and for elderly themselves) is help the elderly live near their children.

Regent's Park, Hyde Park, Green Park and St James's Park are all close enough to stations, including eponymous ones, that I expect we'll shall see many thousands of well designed social housing units springing up pretty soon.

And all the villages where no new houses have been built since 1400 will suddenly discover the upside to Dr Beeching closing their station in 1965.