I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
Do you mean the Cumbrian coastline? The WCML goes inland through Penrith and over Shap Fell. If that floods then it’s more than Millom, Whitehaven and Sellafield will be flooded!
Yes of course - silly me. I meant the coastal train service that goes to Sellafield and on up. A lovely journey but the whole thing is in a flood risk zone.
Actually, if we get some serious sea level rise, the WCML north of Carlisle will be in trouble (but we won't care as Scotland will have gone independent by then):
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Mr. Z, disagree. I'd rather have privacy and quiet.
Happily, I don't get ill very often.
Mr. Cwsc, you need two teachers, though, whereas the number of doctors required would not change.
Also, it's a while ago but some studies I read at university suggested smaller class sizes aren't necessarily much (or any) better. From fuzzy memory, discipline mattered more than class size (and the capacity to throw out the irredeemable).
Yes, but the studies were completely wrong. It is a well-known mistake.
What happened was, they looked at average class sizes in state schools and noted that the smaller they were, the worse the results were.
They did not appreciate this was because your bottom set of nine pupils all with major behavioural problems and limited intelligence was underachieving *because* of the aforementioned issues, and was small becuase of the aforementioned issues, and lacked discipline because...you get the picture. Meanwhile bright, hardworking and self motivated children had to be put in larger classes to free up space on the timetable.
I teach a top set of 32. I teach a bottom set of 16. Guess which one does better...
But if all classes were cut in size substantially, it would help enormously. Another thing people who have never taught don't appreciate is how children feed off each other when it comes to causing disruption. If you have three badly behaved children in a class of 30 they will form a negative feedback loop where one kicks off as another is being dealt with. Much harder for them to do that if there are fewer in the group.
Pedantry compels the observation that that's a positive feedback loop
Clearly you've never been a teacher
Positive does not mean good
Positive feedback = going faster makes you go faster (like a supercharger)
Superchargers run out of both volumetric and adiabatic efficiency before you get anywhere near the rpm limit of the engine.
1. Listening to Radio 4 on conversion therapy. One of the campaigners for ban conversion is now calling for a ban on “Hate prayer”. Where does that stop then? If I say I believe Jesus is the Som of God, does that make me guilty of ‘hate prayer’ for saying something that offends another.
2. Betting tip
Fox has Youngkin up by 8 in the Virginia Governor’s race and certainly the mood music coming through is that McAuliffe is in trouble. Also, the most votes cast so far have been in the district covering Loudoun County, suggesting the schools issue is cutting through. Yet, on smartest, Youngkin is still at less than 40%. DYOR
Saying he is the son of God is Ok but the Som of God is highly offensive
Sodom of God would be worse.
That said, there is a hymn that famously contains this verse.
'The foxes found rest and the birds their nest In the shade of the cedar tree. But thy couch was the sod, o thou Son of God In the deserts of Galilee.'
Strangely, that verse is modified in most modern hymn books.
I saw a service sheet where the word “burning” in a hymn had been replaced with “buming”. The person responsible had to spend an hour before the service correcting each one by hand…
I bet they started by saying, 'oh bugger.'
yeah burning (usually people in hell in a hymm setting) is a lot more socially acceptable than buming isn't it!
I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
I have a friend with a microlight near Lancaster...
If it's properly flooded you need a Canoodian Canay (c Dr Spooner).
There's a lot wrong with this - the aggregation, the comparisons that try to increase context but simply confuse more, etc - but the worst thing is quite simple.
It's all about electricity use and decarbonising electricity supply is the easiest task in decarbonising the economy. We have mature zero carbon sources of electricity that are now price-competitive with fossil fuels. This is a problem now in the implementation phase of its solution, and then it's irrelevant what the electricity is used to do.
There are other, more intractable problems, such as concrete, where public attention should be concentrated. Worrying about streaming is actively harmful in making that problem seem larger and more personal than it is and in distracting from the important issues.
No-one needs to worry about the contribution watching Squid Games makes to global warming. As responsible reporting goes it's probably worse than the staple Daily Mail articles on carcinogens.
1. Listening to Radio 4 on conversion therapy. One of the campaigners for ban conversion is now calling for a ban on “Hate prayer”. Where does that stop then? If I say I believe Jesus is the Som of God, does that make me guilty of ‘hate prayer’ for saying something that offends another.
2. Betting tip
Fox has Youngkin up by 8 in the Virginia Governor’s race and certainly the mood music coming through is that McAuliffe is in trouble. Also, the most votes cast so far have been in the district covering Loudoun County, suggesting the schools issue is cutting through. Yet, on smartest, Youngkin is still at less than 40%. DYOR
Saying he is the son of God is Ok but the Som of God is highly offensive
Sodom of God would be worse.
That said, there is a hymn that famously contains this verse.
'The foxes found rest and the birds their nest In the shade of the cedar tree. But thy couch was the sod, o thou Son of God In the deserts of Galilee.'
Strangely, that verse is modified in most modern hymn books.
I saw a service sheet where the word “burning” in a hymn had been replaced with “buming”. The person responsible had to spend an hour before the service correcting each one by hand…
I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
I have a friend with a microlight near Lancaster...
If it's properly flooded you need a Canoodian Canay (c Dr Spooner).
That rather assumes that the micro is fully fitted for IFR in all weather conditions, doesn't it?
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
I would like to apologise unreservedly. Not for any offence caused (that's always intentional), but for voting for Nick fucking Clegg.
Clegg of course the only peacetime LD leader since Lloyd George to end up in government and now likely to have had a say in the rebranding of one of the biggest corporations in the world, Facebook, to Meta as their VP of Global Affairs.
Plus earning an alleged $2 million a year and supposedly quite the magnet for women in his youth.
I am sure it makes up for losing his seat and leaving his party in the doldrums in 2015
That's true if you care more about your own personal wealth and status more than the damaging impact you have on the rest of the world. Nick Clegg is a sell out of the highest order.
Facebook has brought more happiness to more people than any political party.
Nick Clegg should be proud to play a role in its success.
Facebook has brought more divisiveness to more people, than just about any other company in history.
No, Twitter has brought more divisiveness to more people. Facebook mostly brings pictures of my friends' kids.
Blimey this is simplistic.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not understand how trackers - euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice - work? Facebook is responsible for egregious, aggressive, data mining all over the world. Their approach to trackers is insidious and vile and they don't give an iota about people's privacy nor their rights.
They are one of the most stench-laden organisations ever to creep out of the swamp.
Is this why you use a VPN and a false email address?
I'd appreciate advice on this. I don't use a VPN - should I be?
I'm not techie. I've heard VPNs slow your computer down and can be used by the VPN provider as an information-grab for their own purposes - no idea whether this is true (if so that seems to defeat the object of using one).
Hey @rcs1000 Totally OT question since you're here, is fossil fuel divestment doing anything to starve fossil fuel companies of capital or is it just moving bags from woke pension funds to non-woke investors at a tiny discount?
No, it's not doing anything to starve fossil fuel companies of capital.
For a start, the number of ethical funds is tiny relative to the market. Someone selling Shell wouldn't make a big difference to the pool of buyers. And the remainder are very price sensitive, so I simply can't see how it could do anything more than (maybe) move the equilibrium share price by a percent or two.
But perhaps more importantly - the big oil companies aren't in need of capital! Shell pays out more than $15 billion in dividends every year. They aren't turning up asking Mr Market for money, they're handing massive amounts out to shareholders year in and year out. (I remember Simon Henry, the old Shell CFO, saying to me "Shell has been paying its dividends uninterrupted for a lot longer than most countries have been paying their debts."
The starving will have to be on the demand side.
Quite right.
If you want to make Shell less profitable, use less oil.
Until we have fully viable, scalable, alternatives to all the products we make from oil that is not going to happen.
This is the "step function fallacy". Nothing is worth doing until we can solve the problem all in one go.
Here's what you can do: install insulation; when your boiler is up for replacement, get a tankless water heater, choose a heat pump over a/c and heating. There are lots of little things that help at the margin. And lots of little things - over time - turn into big things.
Exactly this.
There is nearly never One Big Solution to The Big Problem.
So for carbon dioxide emissions we have *hundreds* of ongoing solutions. Each, by itself, might, at most, be a few percent of the problem. But if *many* of them come through, you get to zero net emissions.
For oil, yes, without petrol, diesel and other fuels, you have plastics. So there are projects on the list for that....
They might get you to net zero power as well. Then it is back to square one. What our leaders should be focusing on is getting the basics right first,. Certainly in this country, clean air and clean water. Both are a long way off where they should be in 2021.
Solutions to generating electricity without emitting carbon exist in vast numbers. As does storage of generated power. And the price on most of them are falling as well.
In many, many categories of pollution apart from CO2, emissions have been falling in the developed world. This has been accomplished by incremental reductions in the maximum allowed rates, for each "generation" of machinery etc. This process has been quietly doing it's thing since the 1950s. This was another thing that Donald Fucking Trump screwed up in the US, by the way.
I don't see any solutions to replacing gas as the main UK heat resource anytime soon. Heat pumps are not going to cut it in flats and terraced houses. Once the lights go out it is game over for the greens. Trump made the US energy independent, which is what Bunter could do here, we have the resources, while sorting the air and water. Sewage is dumped in rivers as routine by our appalling water companies and our authorities continue to create air pollution with their traffic policies.
The numbers identified to pay for the demands in the Green vanity amendment, are of the order of doubling or trebling each residential water bill in the country for each of the next 30 years.
Several hundred billion, when the water industry turns over perhaps 10 billion a year.
Of course Jenny Jones did not mention any of that in her emoto-speech, beyond 'Privatised Water Makes Huge Profits - THEY can pay or it'.
Which is why in England the Greens will remain a fringe party.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
PB favourite Bridget Phillipson excellent on QT, but what is the deal with the bloody plastic screens? They look ridiculous and the panellists simply lean around them anyway. Enough with the bloody covid theatre.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
I am not suggesting inflation is not an issue, but in the short term wage increases are needed and Rishi has addressed that especially for the low paid
Inflation due to shortage of supply will moderate once the supply improves and meets the demand
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
It’s probably better than it used to be thanks to double glazing, but whenever the military allowed a supersonic flight over land (usually to chase away the Russkis), they used to get dozens of bills for broken windows along the route.
I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
I have a friend with a microlight near Lancaster...
If it's properly flooded you need a Canoodian Canay (c Dr Spooner).
That rather assumes that the micro is fully fitted for IFR in all weather conditions, doesn't it?
PB favourite Bridget Phillipson excellent on QT, but what is the deal with the bloody plastic screens? They look ridiculous and the panellists simply lean around them anyway. Enough with the bloody covid theatre.
Quite. As the recent hospital study suggests - get in a few decent air filtration units and be done with it.
Hey @rcs1000 Totally OT question since you're here, is fossil fuel divestment doing anything to starve fossil fuel companies of capital or is it just moving bags from woke pension funds to non-woke investors at a tiny discount?
No, it's not doing anything to starve fossil fuel companies of capital.
For a start, the number of ethical funds is tiny relative to the market. Someone selling Shell wouldn't make a big difference to the pool of buyers. And the remainder are very price sensitive, so I simply can't see how it could do anything more than (maybe) move the equilibrium share price by a percent or two.
But perhaps more importantly - the big oil companies aren't in need of capital! Shell pays out more than $15 billion in dividends every year. They aren't turning up asking Mr Market for money, they're handing massive amounts out to shareholders year in and year out. (I remember Simon Henry, the old Shell CFO, saying to me "Shell has been paying its dividends uninterrupted for a lot longer than most countries have been paying their debts."
The starving will have to be on the demand side.
Quite right.
If you want to make Shell less profitable, use less oil.
Until we have fully viable, scalable, alternatives to all the products we make from oil that is not going to happen.
This is the "step function fallacy". Nothing is worth doing until we can solve the problem all in one go.
Here's what you can do: install insulation; when your boiler is up for replacement, get a tankless water heater, choose a heat pump over a/c and heating. There are lots of little things that help at the margin. And lots of little things - over time - turn into big things.
Exactly this.
There is nearly never One Big Solution to The Big Problem.
So for carbon dioxide emissions we have *hundreds* of ongoing solutions. Each, by itself, might, at most, be a few percent of the problem. But if *many* of them come through, you get to zero net emissions.
For oil, yes, without petrol, diesel and other fuels, you have plastics. So there are projects on the list for that....
They might get you to net zero power as well. Then it is back to square one. What our leaders should be focusing on is getting the basics right first,. Certainly in this country, clean air and clean water. Both are a long way off where they should be in 2021.
Solutions to generating electricity without emitting carbon exist in vast numbers. As does storage of generated power. And the price on most of them are falling as well.
In many, many categories of pollution apart from CO2, emissions have been falling in the developed world. This has been accomplished by incremental reductions in the maximum allowed rates, for each "generation" of machinery etc. This process has been quietly doing it's thing since the 1950s. This was another thing that Donald Fucking Trump screwed up in the US, by the way.
I don't see any solutions to replacing gas as the main UK heat resource anytime soon. Heat pumps are not going to cut it in flats and terraced houses. Once the lights go out it is game over for the greens. Trump made the US energy independent, which is what Bunter could do here, we have the resources, while sorting the air and water. Sewage is dumped in rivers as routine by our appalling water companies and our authorities continue to create air pollution with their traffic policies.
The numbers identified to pay for the demands in the Green vanity amendment, are of the order of doubling or trebling each residential water bill in the country for each of the next 30 years.
Several hundred billion, when the water industry turns over perhaps 10 billion a year.
Of course Jenny Jones did not mention any of that in her emoto-speech, beyond 'Privatised Water Makes Huge Profits - THEY can pay or it'.
Which is why in England the Greens will remain a fringe party.
Need to clarify that. £10bn is the approx total of domestic bills for E+W.
Totally O/t but I've had a scam email this morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- E.ON Electricity and Gas Bill Refund
E.ON: Gas and electricity supplier
E.ON Our system indicates that an error in our billing procedures has led to an overcharge on your latest payment to us. Our accounting department has concluded that you are eligible for a refund of £85 GBP view online.
E.ON Issuing Date: 28 OCT 2021
E.ON Refundable Ammount: £85 GBP
E.ON Payment Method: E.ON Electronically by card
For help with your E.ON account, tweet @eonhelp. 8am 8pm Mon - Friday & 8am - 6pm Sat. UK.
E.ON Energy UK (@eonenergyuk). 100% renewable electricity for all our customers' homes as standard..
It would have been nice, but given the way I keep an eye on my gas & electricity I would have been very surprised. It's now in the hands of Action Fraud.
I would like to apologise unreservedly. Not for any offence caused (that's always intentional), but for voting for Nick fucking Clegg.
Clegg of course the only peacetime LD leader since Lloyd George to end up in government and now likely to have had a say in the rebranding of one of the biggest corporations in the world, Facebook, to Meta as their VP of Global Affairs.
Plus earning an alleged $2 million a year and supposedly quite the magnet for women in his youth.
I am sure it makes up for losing his seat and leaving his party in the doldrums in 2015
That's true if you care more about your own personal wealth and status more than the damaging impact you have on the rest of the world. Nick Clegg is a sell out of the highest order.
Facebook has brought more happiness to more people than any political party.
Nick Clegg should be proud to play a role in its success.
Facebook has brought more divisiveness to more people, than just about any other company in history.
No, Twitter has brought more divisiveness to more people. Facebook mostly brings pictures of my friends' kids.
Blimey this is simplistic.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not understand how trackers - euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice - work? Facebook is responsible for egregious, aggressive, data mining all over the world. Their approach to trackers is insidious and vile and they don't give an iota about people's privacy nor their rights.
They are one of the most stench-laden organisations ever to creep out of the swamp.
Is this why you use a VPN and a false email address?
I'd appreciate advice on this. I don't use a VPN - should I be?
I'm not techie. I've heard VPNs slow your computer down and can be used by the VPN provider as an information-grab for their own purposes - no idea whether this is true (if so that seems to defeat the object of using one).
Any advice much appreciated
Don't bother. Use the duckduckgo browser. If you really need a VPN there's one built in too the opera browser which id trust a bit more then a random stand alone one.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
I have a friend with a microlight near Lancaster...
If it's properly flooded you need a Canoodian Canay (c Dr Spooner).
That rather assumes that the micro is fully fitted for IFR in all weather conditions, doesn't it?
Looks like chap in the Sala case looks like he's going to prison, doesn't it?
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
It’s probably better than it used to be thanks to double glazing, but whenever the military allowed a supersonic flight over land (usually to chase away the Russkis), they used to get dozens of bills for broken windows along the route.
Double glazing does little to help with the mini-earthquake effect - an overflight boom will rattle your house.
PB favourite Bridget Phillipson excellent on QT, but what is the deal with the bloody plastic screens? They look ridiculous and the panellists simply lean around them anyway. Enough with the bloody covid theatre.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
PB favourite Bridget Phillipson excellent on QT, but what is the deal with the bloody plastic screens? They look ridiculous and the panellists simply lean around them anyway. Enough with the bloody covid theatre.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
It’s probably better than it used to be thanks to double glazing, but whenever the military allowed a supersonic flight over land (usually to chase away the Russkis), they used to get dozens of bills for broken windows along the route.
We had one (North Yorkshire) when two jets from Lincolnshire were sent to intercept an Air France plane that had gone dark. Heard the jets and went towards our big front window; the first boom made the window visibly flex inwards - I was convinced it was coming in and was turning away/covering my face. Second boom followed a second or so later. People were out on the streets looking signs of where the explosion was (having heard the jets, I had a fair idea what it was; confirmed in the media next day) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/03/sonic-booms-heard-in-yorkshire-as-quick-alert-typhoons-are-scrambled
Edit: fairly recent double glazing too; but he jets were pretty near us, I think, near enough to get my attention before the boom
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
I didn’t always hear the boom, but I did hear the reactions of the ducks on the pond close to our house.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
It’s probably better than it used to be thanks to double glazing, but whenever the military allowed a supersonic flight over land (usually to chase away the Russkis), they used to get dozens of bills for broken windows along the route.
Double glazing does little to help with the mini-earthquake effect - an overflight boom will rattle your house.
The amount of energy is pretty startling.
Mythbusters did a good video on sonic booms - which, in true Mythbusters style ended up with a couple of Blue Angels doing 200’ passes over a table of glassware! https://youtube.com/watch?v=GvtAElaDVz8
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
I grew up in Berkshire in the 1980s and 1990s and although we didn't get the sonic boom you could definitely tell when Concorde had left Heathrow and you could almost set your watch by it. It was so much noisier than other planes. Although it was so loud, it was sad when it stopped.
I would like to apologise unreservedly. Not for any offence caused (that's always intentional), but for voting for Nick fucking Clegg.
Clegg of course the only peacetime LD leader since Lloyd George to end up in government and now likely to have had a say in the rebranding of one of the biggest corporations in the world, Facebook, to Meta as their VP of Global Affairs.
Plus earning an alleged $2 million a year and supposedly quite the magnet for women in his youth.
I am sure it makes up for losing his seat and leaving his party in the doldrums in 2015
That's true if you care more about your own personal wealth and status more than the damaging impact you have on the rest of the world. Nick Clegg is a sell out of the highest order.
Facebook has brought more happiness to more people than any political party.
Nick Clegg should be proud to play a role in its success.
Facebook has brought more divisiveness to more people, than just about any other company in history.
No, Twitter has brought more divisiveness to more people. Facebook mostly brings pictures of my friends' kids.
Blimey this is simplistic.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not understand how trackers - euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice - work? Facebook is responsible for egregious, aggressive, data mining all over the world. Their approach to trackers is insidious and vile and they don't give an iota about people's privacy nor their rights.
They are one of the most stench-laden organisations ever to creep out of the swamp.
Is this why you use a VPN and a false email address?
I'd appreciate advice on this. I don't use a VPN - should I be?
I'm not techie. I've heard VPNs slow your computer down and can be used by the VPN provider as an information-grab for their own purposes - no idea whether this is true (if so that seems to defeat the object of using one).
Any advice much appreciated
Don't bother. Use the duckduckgo browser. If you really need a VPN there's one built in too the opera browser which id trust a bit more then a random stand alone one.
Most people need VPNs to do two things. One is to pretend they are in a different country so they can watch French telly from London or British telly from Paris. The other is for secure access to remote computing facilities in this WFH era (and @TheScreamingEagles will be along later to complain about all the employers who have not set this up). Otherwise, unless you are trying to bring down the government, it is probably not worth the money.
Though regarding performance, most people will not care if their VPN has slowed down transmission of Squid Games by a fraction of a second.
I am now cut off from the rest of Cumbria let alone the rest of the U.K.
There are only 3 routes out: - the train - closed - east to Kendal - but can't even get to Broughton because Duddon Bridge is closed - up the coast and across to the M6 somewhere near Penrith - also out because a bridge at Holmrook is closed.
Rising water in the rivers rather than actual flooding seems to be the reason.
In theory I could try driving over the fells and hope to get to the central lakes and out that way. But not sensible when there has been lots of rain and local floods and if you get stuck the sheep will do sod all to help.
Not that I want to get out just yet. But have a theatre ticket in London on 8th November so just planning my escape route for then.
The good news though is that some people are ignoring the closed roads signs and driving through anyway. The contempt people round here have for Cumbria County Council has to be seen to be believed.
Perhaps the local council will finally do something about strengthening the bridges, an issue which people have complained about for some time.
Climate change is a concern here. If sea levels rise, a lot of coastal communities round here will be underwater. Not where I am. But nearby and it will affect Sellafield and nuclear storage plans and the West Coast mainline.
And, no, I am not going to tell you about my sex life.
(I hope I've got the new PB posting style right.)
Do you mean the Cumbrian coastline? The WCML goes inland through Penrith and over Shap Fell. If that floods then it’s more than Millom, Whitehaven and Sellafield will be flooded!
Yes of course - silly me. I meant the coastal train service that goes to Sellafield and on up. A lovely journey but the whole thing is in a flood risk zone.
Lots of small businesses are suffering ongoing regular problems because of Brexit. Something tells me that people who run their own small businesses are underrepresented here.
Interesting, I expect you are correct that running a small business does not leave ample time for posting interminably on pb.com.
Now, lawyers on the other hand ....
It is certainly noticeable how many of our frequent posters are lawyers.
I have always had a suspicion those lawyer's fees at £300-1000 per hour were overcharges for actual work done on the job
Some of us try to represent the views of the overworked and very stressed small businesswoman aka My Daughter.
And, yes, she has found it harder since reopening fully. Lots of costs are going up. Food and drink in pubs and restaurants will be more expensive not less, regardless of what Sunak said. Margins will be even tighter. There are unexpected shortages in her deliveries.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
The UK has existing laws against harrasment, making threats, defamation and incitement, among other things.
The question is why haven’t these laws been used against people, who are clearly making someone’s else’s life unbearable?
We saw someone in court yesterday for making threats against an MP.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
I grew up in Berkshire in the 1980s and 1990s and although we didn't get the sonic boom you could definitely tell when Concorde had left Heathrow and you could almost set your watch by it. It was so much noisier than other planes. Although it was so loud, it was sad when it stopped.
I used to work in Hammersmith around the turn of the Century and even then people in the street would still stop and watch it fly overhead. Concorde was the most beautiful plane since Helen of Troy.
PB favourite Bridget Phillipson excellent on QT, but what is the deal with the bloody plastic screens? They look ridiculous and the panellists simply lean around them anyway. Enough with the bloody covid theatre.
Indeed. Yet we are assured on PB by experts such as @Stodge that reality is less important than perception. It’s all about perception with covid, apparently.
There may be exceptions but the principle of a tolerant society that allows any amount of intolerant speech but forbids intolerant interference, violence, compulsion, threats etc will cover most cases.
Intolerant people often confuse free speech (always their own rights of course) with consequenceless speech - as if a leftish person may speak of Tory 'scum' but that would not be a good ground for declining to vote for them, or deselecting them.
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
I grew up in Berkshire in the 1980s and 1990s and although we didn't get the sonic boom you could definitely tell when Concorde had left Heathrow and you could almost set your watch by it. It was so much noisier than other planes. Although it was so loud, it was sad when it stopped.
It used to fly right over us after take-off and, yes, you could set your watch by it.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
I think I prefer our system. The “Citizens United” decision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC ) means, effectively, that there are no limits on campaign funding. This in turn means eye-watering amounts of money are spent by both sides (in the Georgia Senate run off elections each candidate spent about the same amount of money as the total spent on the UK 2019 GE) and so US politicians need to spend most of their time fundraising. This leads to something not far short of vote buying by those with the money to do so (i.e. the votes of elected representatives).
The UK is far from perfect, but we could be so much worse…
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
The UK has existing laws against harrasment, making threats, defamation and incitement, among other things.
The question is why haven’t these laws been used against people, who are clearly making someone’s else’s life unbearable?
We saw someone in court yesterday for making threats against an MP.
The cost, the risk, the potential for backfiring, and the widespread further publicity then given to the original statements?
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
The UK has existing laws against harrasment, making threats, defamation and incitement, among other things.
The question is why haven’t these laws been used against people, who are clearly making someone’s else’s life unbearable?
We saw someone in court yesterday for making threats against an MP.
As I've said on earlier threads, the powers that be should distinguish between genuine threats and the ravings of half-drunk, half-mad keyboard warriors. There might also be scope for recipients to use applications that scan and filter out offensive tweets, just as most people's email has been filtered for years, by default.
But we won't. And if we did, doubtless MPs would legislate a new special case for MPs. To use an airport analogy, it is probably a bad idea to joke that you have a bomb in your suitcase, but bad jokes are not what make airliners fall from the sky.
I do not know which class the threats against Angela Rayner fell into.
I would like to apologise unreservedly. Not for any offence caused (that's always intentional), but for voting for Nick fucking Clegg.
Clegg of course the only peacetime LD leader since Lloyd George to end up in government and now likely to have had a say in the rebranding of one of the biggest corporations in the world, Facebook, to Meta as their VP of Global Affairs.
Plus earning an alleged $2 million a year and supposedly quite the magnet for women in his youth.
I am sure it makes up for losing his seat and leaving his party in the doldrums in 2015
That's true if you care more about your own personal wealth and status more than the damaging impact you have on the rest of the world. Nick Clegg is a sell out of the highest order.
Facebook has brought more happiness to more people than any political party.
Nick Clegg should be proud to play a role in its success.
Facebook has brought more divisiveness to more people, than just about any other company in history.
No, Twitter has brought more divisiveness to more people. Facebook mostly brings pictures of my friends' kids.
Blimey this is simplistic.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not understand how trackers - euphemistically called 'cookies' as if to make them sound nice - work? Facebook is responsible for egregious, aggressive, data mining all over the world. Their approach to trackers is insidious and vile and they don't give an iota about people's privacy nor their rights.
They are one of the most stench-laden organisations ever to creep out of the swamp.
Is this why you use a VPN and a false email address?
I'd appreciate advice on this. I don't use a VPN - should I be?
I'm not techie. I've heard VPNs slow your computer down and can be used by the VPN provider as an information-grab for their own purposes - no idea whether this is true (if so that seems to defeat the object of using one).
Any advice much appreciated
Don't bother. Use the duckduckgo browser. If you really need a VPN there's one built in too the opera browser which id trust a bit more then a random stand alone one.
Thanks, never heard of duckduckgo.
I was using Opera but found it painfully slow - unusable really - and when I read below I removed it completely:
Dr. Foxy, why aren't single bed rooms standard here?
Why aren't class sizes of 15 standard?
Same reason.
Incidentally what @DavidL says about the NHS could apply to many other parts of the public sector. Education, local government, transport. And when money is spent to correct it a way is usually found to thwart it (Exhibit A - the eastern leg of HS2). The phrase 'false economy' doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of these people.
This is true of much big organisation (not just government spending). It's all about the vested interests...
A perfect example of this is the SLS space launch system in the US.
Which is an interesting one, since it exists in a world where a lunatic nerd decided that he would spend his money on building space launch systems, by..... spending his money on space launch systems.
Instead of "investing in infrastructure", "protecting existing capabilities" and another mile of guff of political/finance nostrums.
Imagine an education system run on the basis of
- Educate children - that's it really
Ah, the Senate Launch System, that couldn’t get approval unless the contractors spent the money across all 48 contiguous States.
Guess who sent astronauts up to the ISS for a few hundred million dollars of private investment, and who’s still trying to get them off the ground having spent close to $25bn of public money?
Haven't you heard the news? They are planning to privatise the SLS. Which will cause Boeing to magically cut the cost, because reasons.
So each launch will only cost 1 billion dollars. Instead of 2. Complete with the new version of a reusable rocket engine, which is to be thrown away. For $150 million each.
Meanwhile a loony in a Texas swamp is building a factory to build comparable rocket engines for $250,000 each, reducing from their current price of $2.5 million dollars each.....
Of the many mad decisions made by SLS, having almost nothing re-usable, including four ex-Shuttle RS-25s on each launch, is probably the worst. They won’t be able to launch more than half a dozen times, before they need to start making new versions of a 40 year old design.
Meanwhile SpaceX are flying Falcon 9s half a dozen times each, with very little refurbishment required to turn them around. The latest unmanned Starlink launches don’t even get mentioned on here any more, they’re utterly routine now.
SpaceX are so far ahead of the Senate Launch System that it seems almost impossible for it to become a competition again. It would require a total root and branch reform of the latter and many years of investment to catch up.
This Earth to Earth solution has to be one of the most mental ideas imagined, London to Dubai in 29 minutes and England to Australia in under an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
If it were anyone else I'd think there's never a chance of that happening, but with SpaceX it certainly seems like it could possible in the future. I do hope they're working on it, but I suppose all the reuseable and reliable launchers must make it more feasible.
That’s going to be technically possible within a decade, the challenges will be reliability, scheduling and pricing - oh, and planning permission for something that will shake windows with a sonic boom as it takes off and lands. Maybe the Amercians won’t care as much as they did with Concorde, as it’s an American project this time?
Speaking of Concorde, they will need to make very sure they never crash one, because it will kill the demand overnight. We forget how much safer commercial flight has become over the last half a century.
The American issue with sonic booms was that they did a scientific study on a couple of actuals cities.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
Growing up I used to hear a sonic boom from Concorde each evening around nine (apparently it headed for the Bristol Channel and accelerated there). This was in mid Devon, so I expect it was pretty loud if you were under it.
My wife tells me that the sonic boom from an accelerating Concorde was a feature of growing up in West Cork, as regular as the Angelus.
I grew up in Berkshire in the 1980s and 1990s and although we didn't get the sonic boom you could definitely tell when Concorde had left Heathrow and you could almost set your watch by it. It was so much noisier than other planes. Although it was so loud, it was sad when it stopped.
It used to fly right over us after take-off and, yes, you could set your watch by it.
Yep, the New York departure would leave Heathrow at 18:00 on the dot, and have everything else cleared out of the way for it. The only reason for it not flying overhead a few minutes later, was if there were strong Easterly winds and they took off from 09R - in which case the New York arrival would fly over about an hour later.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories' watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
The history of free speech in Britain is rather interesting, and revealing of the national character.
We're rather proud of our centuries-long tradition of free speech, even though it's never been as free as we imagine. Mostly this rests on speech, and particularly publishing, being notably freer in parliamentary Britain than in the enlightened despotisms of the European continent of the 18th and 19th centuries.
There's been a large degree of cultural censure against speaking indiscreetly. The idea of things that are known but not talked about, or of topics not suitable for polite society. Where there's a certain highly-admired style of making polite insults, rather than vulgar ones.
You see something of this in the House of Commons, where Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak publicly about matters that would put them at risk of defamation proceedings if said outside the chamber, but any suggestion that another MP has lied is not at all tolerated, regardless of the facts of the situation.
The attempt to create new social norms in what is acceptable speech around gender issues is therefore something of a dramatic break with our past informal ways of regulating speech, and an attempt to take advantage of those patterns of behaviour to avoid criticism.
The one Brexit shortage we sadly won’t ever see is of complacent posts from our Mr T.
Although the fuel ‘crisis’ is long in the past, and I’ve not seen any stories or posts about gaps on the shelves, or pigs being culled for a while either.
Yesterday a friend asked me where I got my German emissions sticker for my car; when he looked at the website I recommended, it seems that since January they can or will no longer mail them to the UK.
Then I went down the picture framers to collect a picture I left with him three weeks back, but his resupply of frames is snarled in some Brexit import problem and he has no idea when they will arrive. He said he is worrying about his usual pre-Christmas boost in orders, for presents, and added that it is only weeks since he recovered from having problems importing glass.
Lots of small businesses are suffering ongoing regular problems because of Brexit. Something tells me that people who run their own small businesses are underrepresented here.
My nephew, a plumber, has several contracts which apparently he can't proceed with, for lack of (mainly imported) parts.
Brighter morning here.
One of the features of the next decade is going to be a move in production back around the world, reversing the recent trend of concentrating too much production in China and other Asian economies.
China is becoming more politically difficult to deal with as a country, and we have seen clearly the pandemic effect on global supply chains which already had no slack left in them.
How this relocation of manufacturing can happen in conjunction with a promised reduction in domestic carbon emissions, is a more difficult question?
Factories, themselves, are often quite low carbon - machines running on electricity. It is the raw inputs, where the problems are.
A bigger question, is where is all the electricity going to come from? Didn’t a bunch of factories in the UK get shut down by their electricity suppliers last month, after a few days of still and overcast weather reduced the output from renewables to almost nothing?
More diversity in sources is required - see the North Sea Link, the Moroccan thing, mini-nukes* etc etc
That and more storage.
*Would be interesting to see what enrichment the core will be at. No one seems to have asked that question.
I'm quite surprised that we have yet to see a project for a significant windfarm off the Channel Islands supplying the UK.
It's not that much farther away than existing wind farms.
Perhaps it's seabed conditions, or they haven't got around to it yet.
Given the posturings from Paris issue, it's logical. And would add to the availability of UK offhore wind across the country.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
My concerns are structural. An increase in money supply= inflation= interest rate rises=big problems.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
But it was Covid. Obviously. Also I would point out that at every turn the Labour Party has argued for things that would make public finances more wrecked. The public is well aware of this.
Perhaps the Labour Party should stick it to the Tories by arguing for a lesser state response now - pivot on civil liberties - I've said this before. But what do they do? They want Plan B now.
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
The trouble with freedom of speech arguments is they work both ways. If you should have the right to call me an idiot then I (and my army of twitter followers) must have the right to call you an idiot and to urge your employer to sack you, and to urge your employer's customers to boycott it. It's all free speech.
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
I think I prefer our system. The “Citizens United” decision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC ) means, effectively, that there are no limits on campaign funding. This in turn means eye-watering amounts of money are spent by both sides (in the Georgia Senate run off elections each candidate spent about the same amount of money as the total spent on the UK 2019 GE) and so US politicians need to spend most of their time fundraising. This leads to something not far short of vote buying by those with the money to do so (i.e. the votes of elected representatives).
The UK is far from perfect, but we could be so much worse…
I have commented before that the USA's insistence on describing itself as democracy is almost on a par with the self description of such as the German 'Democratic' Republic, the old East Germany.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
Isn't this the beginning of the three Yorkshiremen sketch?
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
There's a big leap from not being the biggest priority to not being relevant, frankly or otherwise!
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
This isn't the 50s. You're now living in a country where people call 999 if they can't find the TV remote.
If there is even a hint of inconvenience, never mind actually jumper necessitating hardship, they will turn on the government with savagery.
Totally O/t but I've had a scam email this morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- E.ON Electricity and Gas Bill Refund
E.ON: Gas and electricity supplier
E.ON Our system indicates that an error in our billing procedures has led to an overcharge on your latest payment to us. Our accounting department has concluded that you are eligible for a refund of £85 GBP view online.
E.ON Issuing Date: 28 OCT 2021
E.ON Refundable Ammount: £85 GBP
E.ON Payment Method: E.ON Electronically by card
For help with your E.ON account, tweet @eonhelp. 8am 8pm Mon - Friday & 8am - 6pm Sat. UK.
E.ON Energy UK (@eonenergyuk). 100% renewable electricity for all our customers' homes as standard..
It would have been nice, but given the way I keep an eye on my gas & electricity I would have been very surprised. It's now in the hands of Action Fraud.
Hmm, were they trying a little too hard to convince that htey were E.ON? I don't think our energy supplier normally starts every sentence with their name!
Also didn't try all that hard with the email account, did they? Could at least have registered eonrefunds.com or similar.
Offtopic, there's a special class of academic spam that presumably targets ac.uk (and other countries) addresses as I only ever get these at work. Mostly gmail accounts inviting me to speak at conferences or join editorial boards for junk or even non-existent journals. I assume - haven't checked - that in the former case there are some fees, maybe in the latter too. For the junk journals being able to put a UK/US academic on the board is obviously helpful, but many don't bother to actually get permission. GMail (we're on GMail) does a surprisingly good job on it - far more blocked than I see - without blocking the real stuff. Hard to tell, as Elsevier and the like send plenty of junk too, for various of their other journals, but you can at least unsubsribe from that. All very defferential though - one was even addressed to 'Professor Doctor Sir', neatly enchairing and enobling me.
Totally O/t but I've had a scam email this morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- E.ON Electricity and Gas Bill Refund
E.ON: Gas and electricity supplier
E.ON Our system indicates that an error in our billing procedures has led to an overcharge on your latest payment to us. Our accounting department has concluded that you are eligible for a refund of £85 GBP view online.
E.ON Issuing Date: 28 OCT 2021
E.ON Refundable Ammount: £85 GBP
E.ON Payment Method: E.ON Electronically by card
For help with your E.ON account, tweet @eonhelp. 8am 8pm Mon - Friday & 8am - 6pm Sat. UK.
E.ON Energy UK (@eonenergyuk). 100% renewable electricity for all our customers' homes as standard..
It would have been nice, but given the way I keep an eye on my gas & electricity I would have been very surprised. It's now in the hands of Action Fraud.
Hmm, were they trying a little too hard to convince that htey were E.ON? I don't think our energy supplier normally starts every sentence with their name!
Also didn't try all that hard with the email account, did they? Could at least have registered eonrefunds.com or similar.
Offtopic, there's a special class of academic spam that presumably targets ac.uk (and other countries) addresses as I only ever get these at work. Mostly gmail accounts inviting me to speak at conferences or join editorial boards for junk or even non-existent journals. I assume - haven't checked - that in the former case there are some fees, maybe in the latter too. For the junk journals being able to put a UK/US academic on the board is obviously helpful, but many don't bother to actually get permission. GMail (we're on GMail) does a surprisingly good job on it - far more blocked than I see - without blocking the real stuff. Hard to tell, as Elsevier and the like send plenty of junk too, for various of their other journals, but you can at least unsubsribe from that. All very defferential though - one was even addressed to 'Professor Doctor Sir', neatly enchairing and enobling me.
When my supplier went bust recently they tried to transfer me to "EON.next" - when they contacted me I told them I had suffered EON customer service before and would go somewhere else. They then tried to claim that "Eon.next" is very different from EON, not EON at all, no sir, not in the least...
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories' watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
It's too late. The narrative is set. During the GFC Cameron and Osborne were on to it straight away. Suggesting Labour pin the blame on the Tories now is equivalent to suggesting that the Tories would have been able to pin the blame on Brown by starting in May 2009, nearly two years after Northern Rock.
I don't want some fucking outfit collecting my personal data and browsing history.
But I don't want my computer to go slower either.
Nordvpn seems good in terms of performance. And if you feel paranoid about the VPN operator logging and seeing how much time you spend on here, they have a double VPN option so the separate providers would have to correlate logs. It's not free but not much.
I don't want some fucking outfit collecting my personal data and browsing history.
But I don't want my computer to go slower either.
"fucking outfit" somewhat ambiguous, above all in this context!
Betrays my lack of knowledge in this area!
Similar computer-divvies like me do seem concerned about data collection issues by the likes of Google and Facebook. I can't quite get a handle on whether these concerns are legitimate ones so I thought I'd ask you guys.
They do say that if you are not paying you are the product.
I'd happily pay for a VPN if I understood it and trusted it I think.
I don't want some fucking outfit collecting my personal data and browsing history.
But I don't want my computer to go slower either.
At one point the NSA was running and monitoring Tor exit nodes for chatter of interest. On that basis, it’s likely that at least some of the popular VPN services are run as self funding fronts by one signals intelligence org or another. I’d certainly avoid anything that billed itself as ‘big in the Middle East’.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
But it was Covid. Obviously. Also I would point out that at every turn the Labour Party has argued for things that would make public finances more wrecked. The public is well aware of this.
Perhaps the Labour Party should stick it to the Tories by arguing for a lesser state response now - pivot on civil liberties - I've said this before. But what do they do? They want Plan B now.
And it also "started in America". I think the public - or enough of them - can be made to associate this terrible financial mess with Tory incompetence. There's just enough truth there to make it stick. Eg, the £37 billion pissed away to consultants on a useless track and trace system. It's about the mood and the messaging. Won't be easy but I think it's possible.
Totally O/t but I've had a scam email this morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- E.ON Electricity and Gas Bill Refund
E.ON: Gas and electricity supplier
E.ON Our system indicates that an error in our billing procedures has led to an overcharge on your latest payment to us. Our accounting department has concluded that you are eligible for a refund of £85 GBP view online.
E.ON Issuing Date: 28 OCT 2021
E.ON Refundable Ammount: £85 GBP
E.ON Payment Method: E.ON Electronically by card
For help with your E.ON account, tweet @eonhelp. 8am 8pm Mon - Friday & 8am - 6pm Sat. UK.
E.ON Energy UK (@eonenergyuk). 100% renewable electricity for all our customers' homes as standard..
It would have been nice, but given the way I keep an eye on my gas & electricity I would have been very surprised. It's now in the hands of Action Fraud.
Hmm, were they trying a little too hard to convince that htey were E.ON? I don't think our energy supplier normally starts every sentence with their name!
Also didn't try all that hard with the email account, did they? Could at least have registered eonrefunds.com or similar.
Offtopic, there's a special class of academic spam that presumably targets ac.uk (and other countries) addresses as I only ever get these at work. Mostly gmail accounts inviting me to speak at conferences or join editorial boards for junk or even non-existent journals. I assume - haven't checked - that in the former case there are some fees, maybe in the latter too. For the junk journals being able to put a UK/US academic on the board is obviously helpful, but many don't bother to actually get permission. GMail (we're on GMail) does a surprisingly good job on it - far more blocked than I see - without blocking the real stuff. Hard to tell, as Elsevier and the like send plenty of junk too, for various of their other journals, but you can at least unsubsribe from that. All very defferential though - one was even addressed to 'Professor Doctor Sir', neatly enchairing and enobling me.
When my supplier went bust recently they tried to transfer me to "EON.next" - when they contacted me I told them I had suffered EON customer service before and would go somewhere else. They then tried to claim that "Eon.next" is very different from EON, not EON at all, no sir, not in the least...
E.ON 'Customer Service', when I tried to report the scam, were not at all easy to deal with. Loads of automation and bots which could not understand that my complaint did not fit into their standard range. Fortunately I normally only deal with them when it come to review of our accounts, and, to be fair, I've usually found them almost as cheap as anywhere else, except the smallest firms, which I'm now glad I didn't use. Last time at any rate.
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
This isn't the 50s. You're now living in a country where people call 999 if they can't find the TV remote.
If there is even a hint of inconvenience, never mind actually jumper necessitating hardship, they will turn on the government with savagery.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
But it was Covid. Obviously. Also I would point out that at every turn the Labour Party has argued for things that would make public finances more wrecked. The public is well aware of this.
Perhaps the Labour Party should stick it to the Tories by arguing for a lesser state response now - pivot on civil liberties - I've said this before. But what do they do? They want Plan B now.
And it also "started in America". I think the public - or enough of them - can be made to associate this terrible financial mess with Tory incompetence. There's just enough truth there to make it stick. Eg, the £37 billion pissed away to consultants on a useless track and trace system. It's about the mood and the messaging. Won't be easy but I think it's possible.
I agree it started in America. That's obvious too. Track and trace was always going to be useless. I said so on here. Labour were one of the outfits that pressurised the government to proceeding with it at pace.
The day after the budget traditionally belongs to the geeks, who have been up all night crunching all the numbers in the small print that the government would rather most people missed. And what the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the independent economics thinktank, had found wasn’t altogether encouraging for Brand Rishi.
First up, there was no help for the unemployed, and middle-earners would face £3k in tax rises. Then there were rising energy prices, inflation and low growth with which to deal. Spending on education was almost nonexistent. Debt was still vast. Tax at its highest level since 1950s. Brexit more damaging to the economy than Covid.
Voters endorse Rishi Sunak plans and back Chancellor's handling of the economy
Boris & Rishi v Starmer & Rachel on managing the economy - 40%/25%
An impressive poll lead that may not see its way to the next election (unless that election is in early 2022).
There is a bumpy ride ahead. What follows 5% or 6% inflation when we are expectant of less than 2% could be brutal. If inflation takes interest rates with it, Sunak better hope he's already been moved into another high office of state.
I have been giving some thought to the general media commentary that all the budget benefits will be lost to high inflation in 2022, and have come to the conclusion that they are missing the point
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
Once the inflation train gets going it is hard to stop. If the interest rates go much more than 1%, get ready Rishy Washy. Not the virus that has caused the crisis but the government policy in response. That will get looked at more when the loan interest rates rise on homes.
They have political protection since there was consensus on Covid requiring a big state response. However, Labour can take a cue from the Cons' mendacious but ruthlessly effective line on the GFC where they managed to airbrush away a similar consensus (on spending and light touch regulation) and associate the pain with the Labour government. Ditto required here. Falling living standards and wrecked public finances are happening on the Tories' watch after many years in power and Labour's task is to stick them with it. They need to make "but it was Covid!" from Johnson/Sunak come over to the public like "it started in America!" did from Brown/Darling.
It's too late. The narrative is set. During the GFC Cameron and Osborne were on to it straight away. Suggesting Labour pin the blame on the Tories now is equivalent to suggesting that the Tories would have been able to pin the blame on Brown by starting in May 2009, nearly two years after Northern Rock.
Too late.
The government did a very good job on the political side at the start of the pandemic, by pretty much following their scientific advise to the letter and avoiding the political choices where possible. They even invited Corbyn and then Starmer, and the devolved administration leaders, to the meetings where the scientific advisors were speaking.
Any opposition who disagreed, were therefore not just arguing against the government, but also against “The Science”, during what was obviously a quickly-moving situation.
The more political decisions came later, which were the removal of the emergency laws and advise, and the support schemes. In almost every case, the majority of those opposed were in favour of more restrictions rather than fewer.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
This isn't the 50s. You're now living in a country where people call 999 if they can't find the TV remote.
If there is even a hint of inconvenience, never mind actually jumper necessitating hardship, they will turn on the government with savagery.
Like they did about lockdown?
I actually had this conversation with someone
Him - "Track and trace, government blah blah" Me - "When you had COVID, you had people round to your house for parties. You evaded or broke all the lockdown rules." Him - "Stop blaming me"
His actual position resolved to the government had a duty to lock him up. Or something.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
The other question is "What kind of facemarks?"
I would suspect that N95s with proper fitting - which I learnt from hobby stuff - would have a different effect to bandanas. Which are popular with some.
@nickgutteridge The EU Commission says it wasn't pre-notified by France about planned retaliatory measures against the UK over fishing licences and learnt about them from press reports. A spokesman adds officials will now assess whether they're compatible with the EU-UK trade deal and EU law. https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1454028498704736262
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
What we need to do is set up a parallel universe Wales where everything else is the same except from the usage of masks. Then we might be able to say something conclusive.
@nickgutteridge The EU Commission says it wasn't pre-notified by France about planned retaliatory measures against the UK over fishing licences and learnt about them from press reports. A spokesman adds officials will now assess whether they're compatible with the EU-UK trade deal and EU law. https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1454028498704736262
As if the French will care about trivialities like that.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
What we need to do is set up a parallel universe Wales where everything else is the same except from the usage of masks. Then we might be able to say something conclusive.
I don't want some fucking outfit collecting my personal data and browsing history.
But I don't want my computer to go slower either.
At one point the NSA was running and monitoring Tor exit nodes for chatter of interest. On that basis, it’s likely that at least some of the popular VPN services are run as self funding fronts by one signals intelligence org or another. I’d certainly avoid anything that billed itself as ‘big in the Middle East’.
True - this is the world where BCCI was deliberately kept in business to track what certain people were doing with their money, after all.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
What we need to do is set up a parallel universe Wales where everything else is the same except from the usage of masks. Then we might be able to say something conclusive.
Or we could just make the parallel universe without Covid and all go live there
@nickgutteridge The EU Commission says it wasn't pre-notified by France about planned retaliatory measures against the UK over fishing licences and learnt about them from press reports. A spokesman adds officials will now assess whether they're compatible with the EU-UK trade deal and EU law. https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1454028498704736262
As if the French will care about trivialities like that.
Does sort of underline the issue with the EU - the bigger countries (like France and Germany) will just ignore it when they want / work around it
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
What we need to do is set up a parallel universe Wales where everything else is the same except from the usage of masks. Then we might be able to say something conclusive.
But now for a serious answer: you can estimate the effect of policy choices/adherence in ways that don't involve the Schroedinger equation. You can do regression analyses that control for other factors. These analyses have been done, and the simple truth is that masks work. That's now simply established fact. Facts alone don't make policy, but it's the best place to start from.
Facemasks really doing the job in Wales then with its highest infection rate in the UK. Almost conclude they are worse than useless in a real world setting
Copy/paste from a previous thread:
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
While that's true the argument doesn't help us to work out how useful facemasks are, and therefore whether they should be the focus of public policy.
What we can say is that one of two things must be true. Either enforcing face mask usage at this stage of the pandemic results in more transmission, or there are other differences between Wales and England that have more of an effect on transmission than face mask usage.
I would suggest that public policy would be better directed towards those other differences, working out what they are and making the most of them to reduce transmission.
The NHS is an interesting 'problem' to consider because in an ideal world it would be obsolete. In my opinion, the health of the nation should be looked at in the round. Improvements in our general condition would not only result in a reduced burden on the NHS, but also a reduced need for social care in later life, and a more intelligent, innovative, and capable population. These improvements won't come from bleating at people to 'eat more vegetables', which is a fairly meaningless goal, since all vegetables are not created equal. They will come from looking hard at our dietary staples, and taking simple but effective steps to make them more nourishing and health giving. That should start with milk, where improving the current methods of pasteurisation and homogenisation could transform the health-giving properties of the product, and work its way through vegetables, meat, cooking fats etc.
Comments
Rishi, or indeed any chancellor, would have been in far greater difficulty in 2022 if he had not increased he NLW by 6.6% and addressed the UC taper, as this increase will encourage further increases across industry and wages will rise across the board to mitigate inflation
Furthermore, we may underestimate people's ability to adapt to circumstances, and with the substantial increase in energy costs people will adjust by wearing heavier clothes, base layers, overcoats and scarves as my wife and I did living in the NE of Scotland, and in my case in Berwick on Tweed, when on occasions the frost in the early morning was coated on the inside of our windows, we had no central heating, and hot water came only from the back boiler behind the coal fire in the lounge, which my Father lit early every morning. (Mid 1950s)
As far as I am aware nobody has an answer to the inflation caused by the world coming out of covid but the idea that increasing wages adds to inflation is quite frankly not relevant as we attempt to balance the economy post covid
I expect interest rates will rise by 1% or a little more to dampen inflation but this is nowhere near the 15% threatened all those years ago
If it's properly flooded you need a Canoodian Canay (c Dr Spooner).
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/29/streamings-dirty-secret-how-viewing-netflix-top-10-creates-vast-quantity-of-co2
There's a lot wrong with this - the aggregation, the comparisons that try to increase context but simply confuse more, etc - but the worst thing is quite simple.
It's all about electricity use and decarbonising electricity supply is the easiest task in decarbonising the economy. We have mature zero carbon sources of electricity that are now price-competitive with fossil fuels. This is a problem now in the implementation phase of its solution, and then it's irrelevant what the electricity is used to do.
There are other, more intractable problems, such as concrete, where public attention should be concentrated. Worrying about streaming is actively harmful in making that problem seem larger and more personal than it is and in distracting from the important issues.
No-one needs to worry about the contribution watching Squid Games makes to global warming. As responsible reporting goes it's probably worse than the staple Daily Mail articles on carcinogens.
Not sure where to look that up.
And discovered that 40% of the population would never adapt to sonic booms, and that they would use that to prioritise their vote.
So, in political terms, if you allowed supersonic overflight, your opponents could win *any* election by being anti. Which is why it got banned.
It is noticeable that the only countries that allowed supersonic overflight are characterised by large deserts inhabited by people the government didn't care about.
I'm not techie. I've heard VPNs slow your computer down and can be used by the VPN provider as an information-grab for their own purposes - no idea whether this is true (if so that seems to defeat the object of using one).
Any advice much appreciated
Several hundred billion, when the water industry turns over perhaps 10 billion a year.
Of course Jenny Jones did not mention any of that in her emoto-speech, beyond 'Privatised Water Makes Huge Profits - THEY can pay or it'.
Which is why in England the Greens will remain a fringe party.
Inflation due to shortage of supply will moderate once the supply improves and meets the demand
https://www.rosneft.com/governance/board/compensation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.ON Electricity and Gas Bill Refund
E.ON: Gas and electricity supplier
E.ON Our system indicates that an error in our billing procedures has led to an overcharge on your latest payment to us.
Our accounting department has concluded that you are eligible for a refund of £85 GBP view online.
E.ON Issuing Date: 28 OCT 2021
E.ON Refundable Ammount: £85 GBP
E.ON Payment Method: E.ON Electronically by card
For help with your E.ON account, tweet @eonhelp. 8am 8pm Mon - Friday & 8am - 6pm Sat. UK.
E.ON Energy UK (@eonenergyuk). 100% renewable electricity for all our customers' homes as standard..
E.ON Plc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have been nice, but given the way I keep an eye on my gas & electricity I would have been very surprised.
It's now in the hands of Action Fraud.
http://rusletter.com/articles/rosneft_will_pay_gerhard_schroeder_600_thousand_dollars
Kathleen Stock resigns
This is sad news, imho. I haven't followed events particularly closely, but from what I've seen there is nothing in he actions that should have led to her being treated the way she has been. I'm not saying that I agree completely with her views (nor that I disagree - I haven't read her books) but freedom of speech is important. It is those who threaten that who should be made to leave.
There's a difficult balancing act with freedom of speech on the other side and the right to protest, but if (from wikipedia) police were right to have "advised Stock to take precautions for her safety, including installing CCTV at her home and using bodyguards on campus" then the people making that necessary should have been exlcuded from the campus.
Just saying, re 'casual' flights.
The amount of energy is pretty startling.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007489/S1321_EMG_Role_of_Screens_and_Barriers_in_Mitigating_COVID-19_transmission.pdf
And the other problem is people who bang on about free speech assume we live in America where there are constitutional protections, rather than here where free speech has long been constrained by censorship and defamation laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/03/sonic-booms-heard-in-yorkshire-as-quick-alert-typhoons-are-scrambled
Edit: fairly recent double glazing too; but he jets were pretty near us, I think, near enough to get my attention before the boom
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GvtAElaDVz8
Though regarding performance, most people will not care if their VPN has slowed down transmission of Squid Games by a fraction of a second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The question is why haven’t these laws been used against people, who are clearly making someone’s else’s life unbearable?
We saw someone in court yesterday for making threats against an MP.
Cons 39 +2
Lab 33
Green 10
LD 8 -1
Intolerant people often confuse free speech (always their own rights of course) with consequenceless speech - as if a leftish person may speak of Tory 'scum' but that would not be a good ground for declining to vote for them, or deselecting them.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=39&LAB=33&LIB=8&Reform=2&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/insulate-britain-protesters-start-walking-into-oncoming-traffic-in-tactics-change/150057
The UK is far from perfect, but we could be so much worse…
But we won't. And if we did, doubtless MPs would legislate a new special case for MPs. To use an airport analogy, it is probably a bad idea to joke that you have a bomb in your suitcase, but bad jokes are not what make airliners fall from the sky.
I do not know which class the threats against Angela Rayner fell into.
I was using Opera but found it painfully slow - unusable really - and when I read below I removed it completely:
https://restoreprivacy.com/vpn/reviews/opera-vpn/
We're rather proud of our centuries-long tradition of free speech, even though it's never been as free as we imagine. Mostly this rests on speech, and particularly publishing, being notably freer in parliamentary Britain than in the enlightened despotisms of the European continent of the 18th and 19th centuries.
There's been a large degree of cultural censure against speaking indiscreetly. The idea of things that are known but not talked about, or of topics not suitable for polite society. Where there's a certain highly-admired style of making polite insults, rather than vulgar ones.
You see something of this in the House of Commons, where Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak publicly about matters that would put them at risk of defamation proceedings if said outside the chamber, but any suggestion that another MP has lied is not at all tolerated, regardless of the facts of the situation.
The attempt to create new social norms in what is acceptable speech around gender issues is therefore something of a dramatic break with our past informal ways of regulating speech, and an attempt to take advantage of those patterns of behaviour to avoid criticism.
It's not that much farther away than existing wind farms.
Perhaps it's seabed conditions, or they haven't got around to it yet.
Given the posturings from Paris issue, it's logical. And would add to the availability of UK offhore wind across the country.
Perhaps the Labour Party should stick it to the Tories by arguing for a lesser state response now - pivot on civil liberties - I've said this before. But what do they do? They want Plan B now.
Or Gener8 (just an ad blocker I think)?
If there is even a hint of inconvenience, never mind actually jumper necessitating hardship, they will turn on the government with savagery.
I don't want some fucking outfit collecting my personal data and browsing history.
But I don't want my computer to go slower either.
Also didn't try all that hard with the email account, did they? Could at least have registered eonrefunds.com or similar.
Offtopic, there's a special class of academic spam that presumably targets ac.uk (and other countries) addresses as I only ever get these at work. Mostly gmail accounts inviting me to speak at conferences or join editorial boards for junk or even non-existent journals. I assume - haven't checked - that in the former case there are some fees, maybe in the latter too. For the junk journals being able to put a UK/US academic on the board is obviously helpful, but many don't bother to actually get permission. GMail (we're on GMail) does a surprisingly good job on it - far more blocked than I see - without blocking the real stuff. Hard to tell, as Elsevier and the like send plenty of junk too, for various of their other journals, but you can at least unsubsribe from that. All very defferential though - one was even addressed to 'Professor Doctor Sir', neatly enchairing and enobling me.
I'm surprised you techies aren't using VPNs as standard to be honest.
Too late.
@Ruptly
Russia state-affiliated media
#NATO mission office closed in #Moscow after accreditation withdrawn
https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1454025958378311686
SKS doing well 20%, badly 60%, who the fook is SKS 20%
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1454022225229668352
Similar computer-divvies like me do seem concerned about data collection issues by the likes of Google and Facebook. I can't quite get a handle on whether these concerns are legitimate ones so I thought I'd ask you guys.
They do say that if you are not paying you are the product.
I'd happily pay for a VPN if I understood it and trusted it I think.
Fortunately I normally only deal with them when it come to review of our accounts, and, to be fair, I've usually found them almost as cheap as anywhere else, except the smallest firms, which I'm now glad I didn't use. Last time at any rate.
Global Leader Approval: Among All Adults bit.ly/3fglKob
Modi: 70%
López Obrador: 67%
Draghi: 60%
Merkel: 53%
Morrison: 49%
Biden: 45%
Trudeau: 45%
Kishida: 43%
Johnson: 39%
Moon: 39%
Sánchez: 37%
Bolsonaro: 36%
Macron: 35%
*Updated 10/28/21
https://twitter.com/morningconsult/status/1454027227784384515?s=21
Any opposition who disagreed, were therefore not just arguing against the government, but also against “The Science”, during what was obviously a quickly-moving situation.
The more political decisions came later, which were the removal of the emergency laws and advise, and the support schemes. In almost every case, the majority of those opposed were in favour of more restrictions rather than fewer.
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm."
Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!"
Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them.
The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
Him - "Track and trace, government blah blah"
Me - "When you had COVID, you had people round to your house for parties. You evaded or broke all the lockdown rules."
Him - "Stop blaming me"
His actual position resolved to the government had a duty to lock him up. Or something.
I would suspect that N95s with proper fitting - which I learnt from hobby stuff - would have a different effect to bandanas. Which are popular with some.
The EU Commission says it wasn't pre-notified by France about planned retaliatory measures against the UK over fishing licences and learnt about them from press reports. A spokesman adds officials will now assess whether they're compatible with the EU-UK trade deal and EU law.
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1454028498704736262
you can estimate the effect of policy choices/adherence in ways that don't involve the Schroedinger equation. You can do regression analyses that control for other factors. These analyses have been done, and the simple truth is that masks work. That's now simply established fact. Facts alone don't make policy, but it's the best place to start from.
What we can say is that one of two things must be true. Either enforcing face mask usage at this stage of the pandemic results in more transmission, or there are other differences between Wales and England that have more of an effect on transmission than face mask usage.
I would suggest that public policy would be better directed towards those other differences, working out what they are and making the most of them to reduce transmission.