So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
This is pb.com! Nothing to stop people being experts at everything from trains to trade deals to vaccines to cricket to the economy to geology and then back to trans.
The reason I overreacted (sorry about that) is that I've come to trust rcs as a poster with a greater than normal connection to reality and an interest in facts that goes beyond twisting them to win an argument. He's one of the posters more likely to provide a corrective to me when I've allowed what I want to be true to obscure what is true.
And now I've found that he's one of the guys who will pull random numbers out of his arse to dispute an inconvenient truth.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
This is pb.com! Nothing to stop people being experts at everything from trains to trade deals to vaccines to cricket to the economy to geology and then back to trans.
The reason I overreacted (sorry about that) is that I've come to trust rcs as a poster with a greater than normal connection to reality and an interest in facts that goes beyond twisting them to win an argument. He's one of the posters more likely to provide a corrective to me when I've allowed what I want to be true to obscure what is true.
And now I've found that he's one of the guys who will pull random numbers out of his arse to dispute an inconvenient truth.
Disappointed.
An apology even more oafish and point- missing then the original offence. Try again
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
This is pb.com! Nothing to stop people being experts at everything from trains to trade deals to vaccines to cricket to the economy to geology and then back to trans.
The reason I overreacted (sorry about that) is that I've come to trust rcs as a poster with a greater than normal connection to reality and an interest in facts that goes beyond twisting them to win an argument. He's one of the posters more likely to provide a corrective to me when I've allowed what I want to be true to obscure what is true.
And now I've found that he's one of the guys who will pull random numbers out of his arse to dispute an inconvenient truth.
Disappointed.
An apology even more oafish and point- missing then the original offence. Try again
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.
Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
....Childish language!
"We won't roll over...."
Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act
(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment
Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?
I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
There are those who claim he still walks amongst us, but I for one discount these rumours as the rantings of mystics.
Is it too much to ask that Sean pens a Speccie piece on wild swimming?
The water closed briefly around my head. I resurfaced and looked around me, cold water dripping from my hair. The Thames. Blue. I looked right, then further right. Tourists riding The Wheel. Bankers on the river banks. Hot young women. London is BACK.
For some reason, it was the bankers on the riverbanks line that got me. It actually made me L.O.L.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
I think it is because salt water is 2.5% more dense than a fresh water iceberg.
Interesting physics question. If you mix a solution of volume A with a quantity of a solvent volume B, is the resultant volume A+B or something else (presumably it would be less than or equal to, but not greater than)?
I do not know the answer to that.
Edit: My guess is that it would be A+B, because the soluant is dissolved fully within the volume of the solvent, so the volume of the solvent in the solution is A, and the total volume of the solvent will be A+B, and hence that will be the volume.
It suggests that the answer to your question (Volume of solution A mixed with pure solvent B, at least in the water/salt case) is slightly less than A+B, but not by much.
It also explains why melting floating ice raises the sea level (by the ratio of the density of sea water to fresh water) better than we managed here, but does say that melting ALL the floating ice, including the (fresh water) ice shelves would only raise sea levels by 4cm, and that this might take as long as 1000yrs.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
This is pb.com! Nothing to stop people being experts at everything from trains to trade deals to vaccines to cricket to the economy to geology and then back to trans.
The reason I overreacted (sorry about that) is that I've come to trust rcs as a poster with a greater than normal connection to reality and an interest in facts that goes beyond twisting them to win an argument. He's one of the posters more likely to provide a corrective to me when I've allowed what I want to be true to obscure what is true.
And now I've found that he's one of the guys who will pull random numbers out of his arse to dispute an inconvenient truth.
Disappointed.
An apology even more oafish and point- missing then the original offence. Try again
Well it's nothing to do with you, so piss off.
You seem to be a very angry person, although your dominant trait is of course extreme stupidity. Chill.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit
Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Interesting article but of course Christianity spread amongst ordinary people.
I have yet to see wokeness spread much beyond university campuses and elite liberal leaning graduates and even while BME people do have some sympathy with the need for whites to atone for slavery few have much truck with the cancel culture and erasing all our history. Many are also strong supporters of the traditional family
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
This is apparently a daily occurance in LA at the moment: "As soon as the train stops, thieves start opening containers. It is quite well organized. This is the main line."
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit
Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
Students do/say/demand stupid stuff. Has ever been thus.
Now, if the university agree, that's different...
As for pronouns, some of my colleagues have it on their email signatures and twitter handles; I don't. I figure most people can take an informed guess at my preferred gender from my name and picture. If they get it wrong, I'll gently correct them, probably. No big deal. I can't say I'm bothered by other people publishing their pronouns (and I'll call them by whatever they ask). But I don't think anyone should be forced to.
To be fair, neither do I think we should be forced to link to the university's email disclaimer, which effectively says if we've said something stupid, untrue, libellous etc then please don't sue the uni as we're all a bunch of fuckwits and not their responsibility. But I suck it up and put the link on my emails. If we we were asked by the uni to out our pronouns then I'd probably do that too.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
It's a streak of revanchist bearshit. Putin is just doing the normal Putin thing of projecting his own faults onto others. His country is the intolerant one, jailing and murdering journalists by the dozen, invading neighbours, pumping out homophobic and race-baiting propaganda, toying with fascist themes whilst accusing liberals, soclialists and Jews of being Nazis. Strafing mosques in Syria with fire and chemicals then saying that Merkel is to blame for the wave of refugees that flee the barrel bombs and missiles.
If you really buy into Putin's crap, you are lost in a spiral of darkness deeper and darker than I thought.
I am no Putin fan but Leon has some sensible points. Eastern Europe is largely still immune from wokeism and committed to traditional values and Putin encapsulates that. He also recognises climate change is real even if he wants to take action on it in a way that does not damage the Russian economy.
Remember too you can still legally be homosexual in Russia and not be arrested even if it does not have gay marriage, that is a long way from the situation in most of North Africa and the Middle East. It was also Putin's airforce which played a key role in helping Assad defeat ISIS which was of great benefit to us all
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
Students do/say/demand stupid stuff. Has ever been thus.
Now, if the university agree, that's different...
As for pronouns, some of my colleagues have it on their email signatures and twitter handles; I don't. I figure most people can take an informed guess at my preferred gender from my name and picture. If they get it wrong, I'll gently correct them, probably. No big deal. I can't say I'm bothered by other people publishing their pronouns (and I'll call them by whatever they ask). But I don't think anyone should be forced to.
To be fair, neither do I think we should be forced to link to the university's email disclaimer, which effectively says if we've said something stupid, untrue, libellous etc then please don't sue the uni as we're all a bunch of fuckwits and not their responsibility. But I suck it up and put the link on my emails. If we we were asked by the uni to out our pronouns then I'd probably do that too.
I'm hoping Charles III's first pronouncement will be that they wish to be called Their Majesty
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit
Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
I thought D’Annunzio was into the whole free-love thing, rather than a protector of the traditional family?
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Sounds nuts non gender specific gonads. The first one. The second seems fairly inoffensive to me, depending on content (maybe we have one too, can't remember the last time I saw the uni home page) and the third too - again, depends on context. Was it the mentioning black or not mentioning Jewish that was the problem?
Not an issue (wokeness) that I've come across. I would say we don't fuss about such nonsense in Yorkshire, but note the other comment about Leeds and didn't York have a pride zebra crossing (that seemed daft as it wasn't immediately clear that it was a zebra crossing, having completely different colours and even shapes, I think). Still, it was when there was actually no one there, in lockdown.
I'm afraid your deaths graph bears no resemblance at all to the data on the official site, eg:
29 Oct - Official site has 58, you have zero 28 Oct - Official site has 133, you have just under 120
As far as deaths are concerned, I think the graph on the official site is far more meaningful - the 7 day average is properly centred and the 3 month and 6 month graphs give a far better feel for the position.
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit
Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ
Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
Youngkin to win, remember the last time the GOP won the Virginia governorship was in 2009 when Bob McDonnell won it in the first year of Obama's presidency.
Obama at the time had higher approval ratings than Biden does now
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
Like you, I don’t bother. And nor do I care. People take one look at me and automatically call me him/he. If they wish to call me they/she/zi/latinx that’s fine with me. Yet no-one does.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
I'm a freelancer but I have a kind of boss. She has just had her THIRD compulsory 90 minute seminar and exam on "diversity awareness" in 18 months
She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse
Given that they keep telling everyone not to have any children to save the planet, I'm not sure how great an appeal it is to say we're doing this for "our children and our children's children."
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
At work I’m normally addressed as “sir”…
If forced, I'll put mine as Dr/Dr's
A gender neutral singular would be handy. I've certainly found myself in situations talking about someone I've never met, with an unfamiliar name and not knowing the gender. Happens on here too, of course. When I don't know, I often use he/she, but that's ugly. 'they' also grates for one person.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
At work I’m normally addressed as “sir”…
If forced, I'll put mine as Dr/Dr's
A gender neutral singular would be handy. I've certainly found myself in situations talking about someone I've never met, with an unfamiliar name and not knowing the gender. Happens on here too, of course. When I don't know, I often use he/she, but that's ugly. 'they' also grates for one person.
“They” was used by Jane Austin in that way, I seem to remember.
Having said that, I don’t want anyone saying he/him to me: my name, sir (if a student or some of the younger staff), or you. Who would you ever address in the third person?
Given that they keep telling everyone not to have any children to save the planet, I'm not sure how great an appeal it is to say we're doing this for "our children and our children's children."
I'm afraid your deaths graph bears no resemblance at all to the data on the official site, eg:
29 Oct - Official site has 58, you have zero 28 Oct - Official site has 133, you have just under 120
As far as deaths are concerned, I think the graph on the official site is far more meaningful - the 7 day average is properly centred and the 3 month and 6 month graphs give a far better feel for the position.
That's because I accidentally uploaded yesterdays, instead of todays. Thank you for noticing
As to which graph is more demonstrative.... well, they show different things I think....
This would be interesting (but sadly the Welsh data is not being provided)
Comments
And now I've found that he's one of the guys who will pull random numbers out of his arse to dispute an inconvenient truth.
Disappointed.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975
"We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."
"The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."
He is right. He is absolutely right
Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/170/1/145/2019346
It suggests that the answer to your question (Volume of solution A mixed with pure solvent B, at least in the water/salt case) is slightly less than A+B, but not by much.
It also explains why melting floating ice raises the sea level (by the ratio of the density of sea water to fresh water) better than we managed here, but does say that melting ALL the floating ice, including the (fresh water) ice shelves would only raise sea levels by 4cm, and that this might take as long as 1000yrs.
Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
I have yet to see wokeness spread much beyond university campuses and elite liberal leaning graduates and even while BME people do have some sympathy with the need for whites to atone for slavery few have much truck with the cancel culture and erasing all our history. Many are also strong supporters of the traditional family
https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1454654911249928194
Now, if the university agree, that's different...
As for pronouns, some of my colleagues have it on their email signatures and twitter handles; I don't. I figure most people can take an informed guess at my preferred gender from my name and picture. If they get it wrong, I'll gently correct them, probably. No big deal. I can't say I'm bothered by other people publishing their pronouns (and I'll call them by whatever they ask). But I don't think anyone should be forced to.
To be fair, neither do I think we should be forced to link to the university's email disclaimer, which effectively says if we've said something stupid, untrue, libellous etc then please don't sue the uni as we're all a bunch of fuckwits and not their responsibility. But I suck it up and put the link on my emails. If we we were asked by the uni to out our pronouns then I'd probably do that too.
Remember too you can still legally be homosexual in Russia and not be arrested even if it does not have gay marriage, that is a long way from the situation in most of North Africa and the Middle East. It was also Putin's airforce which played a key role in helping Assad defeat ISIS which was of great benefit to us all
The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
Not an issue (wokeness) that I've come across. I would say we don't fuss about such nonsense in Yorkshire, but note the other comment about Leeds and didn't York have a pride zebra crossing (that seemed daft as it wasn't immediately clear that it was a zebra crossing, having completely different colours and even shapes, I think). Still, it was when there was actually no one there, in lockdown.
29 Oct - Official site has 58, you have zero
28 Oct - Official site has 133, you have just under 120
As far as deaths are concerned, I think the graph on the official site is far more meaningful - the 7 day average is properly centred and the 3 month and 6 month graphs give a far better feel for the position.
Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
Obama at the time had higher approval ratings than Biden does now
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/virginia/
She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse
A gender neutral singular would be handy. I've certainly found myself in situations talking about someone I've never met, with an unfamiliar name and not knowing the gender. Happens on here too, of course. When I don't know, I often use he/she, but that's ugly. 'they' also grates for one person.
New thread
Having said that, I don’t want anyone saying he/him to me: my name, sir (if a student or some of the younger staff), or you. Who would you ever address in the third person?
As to which graph is more demonstrative.... well, they show different things I think....
This would be interesting (but sadly the Welsh data is not being provided)
https://i.imgur.com/DMIfzER.jpg
It's a link so that it doesn't kill the PB comments by slow loading