Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Four months of the weekly local by-election bet – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 8 in General
imageFour months of the weekly local by-election bet – politicalbetting.com

Last September, the politics team at Smarkets decided to start offering a market on one local by-election every week. We’ve had a look back at the results to see if we could learn anything about whether the betting markets provided any useful information about the outcomes.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,293
    edited January 8
    First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    Nige making out he is best buds with novax family....

    https://youtu.be/t-33w1Kf0Mg
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,018
    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,474
    Fourth like the Scottish Green Party.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506

    First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
  • Being published in the Spectator is no indication of a persuasive argument.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-novak-djokovic
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,474
    Shadsy, these council by election markets are not listed at Oddschecker. Why?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
  • First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
    Yes, I was writing tomorrow's threads.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,275
    edited January 8
    Trump election Russian meddling fans should keep an eye on this extradition and defection story from a few days ago. It is not over yet.

    U.S. Catches Kremlin Insider Who May Have Secrets of 2016 Hack
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-03/kremlin-insider-klyushin-is-said-to-have-2016-hack-details
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-fear-insider-extradited-from-switzerland-to-us-may-have-defected/ar-AASo7Kv
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    It’s very bright but very cold here in Manhattan.

    Has Nadine Dorries tweeted anything about Stoke’s decision to lay off its curatorial staff yet?
    Levelling up? More like giving up.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,293
    edited January 8
    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950
  • I've let OGH know the problem with the images rendering in the thread header.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506

    First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
    Yes, I was writing tomorrow's threads.
    48% of soccer moms prefer Single Transferable Vote to short balding men with dee dah accent?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
  • First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
    Yes, I was writing tomorrow's threads.
    48% of soccer moms prefer Single Transferable Vote to short balding men with dee dah accent?
    Actually that's quite close to one of the threads.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,926

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    Why is consulting a former VP (from the same party) considered “of all people?”

    Assuming that Cheyne was PNG to the Trumpists as would be democrat VPs, then Quayle sounds like a sensible choice for a second opinion
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    Novak Djokovic attended tennis event with children 'day after he tested positive for Covid'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2022/01/08/novak-djokovic-granted-vaccine-exemption-getting-covid-last/
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,229

    First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
    Yes, I was writing tomorrow's threads.
    48% of soccer moms prefer Single Transferable Vote to short balding men with dee dah accent?
    Dontcha mean 'single transferable chaps'?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506

    First like Smarkets in offering a wide range of political bets.

    🙂 anything to declare in list of members interests?
    Yes, I was writing tomorrow's threads.
    48% of soccer moms prefer Single Transferable Vote to short balding men with dee dah accent?
    Actually that's quite close to one of the threads.
    You are full of surprises! 😆
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801

    Novak Djokovic attended tennis event with children 'day after he tested positive for Covid'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2022/01/08/novak-djokovic-granted-vaccine-exemption-getting-covid-last/

    Can we put him on a plane with these people?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59917300
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    Or because he was a member of the UK Supreme Court?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506
    *🐎

    I would have been better betting on pond life today.

    Malcs early strike, again doesn’t go winless. And two seconds Malc, do you get anything for them?
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 509
    edited January 8

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    Sumption seems a case in point for judicial retirement. People get old.
    And even the sharpest decline.

    I saw it with my Grandfather. A sharp man and a successful farmer. But a man
    whose biases seemed to become more entrenched and harder to shake as he aged.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Charles said:

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    Or because he was a member of the UK Supreme Court?
    And the pronouncements of judges are sacred. Except when they are not.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801

    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
    Have you sorted out the the major issue for living in New York - the lawyer to use when suing the lawyer you used to sue your regular lawyer?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,801
    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    I wonder what we'll see. I'd so love to be involved in this sort of stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Charles said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    Why is consulting a former VP (from the same party) considered “of all people?”

    Assuming that Cheyne was PNG to the Trumpists as would be democrat VPs, then Quayle sounds like a sensible choice for a second opinion
    Because when Dan Quayle is the voice of sanity, something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

    Although I think you are both missing another key point - Quayle and Pence knew each other well as prominent Indiana Republicans and ardent evangelical conservatives. So from that point of view perhaps this was less 'seeking advice from a former Veep' than 'seeking advice from a political friend and ally.'
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Now to align the mirror segments, to within a few 10s of nanometers.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,251

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    You would think that most opinion columns would recieve a failing grade were they to be submitted as academic essays , but given the current state of our universities I am not so sure.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 5,084

    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
    Citadel of woke? SF? Portland OR? DC?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Local R

    image
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    Yep. Touch of Preening Lord Sumption.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,036
    Hospitalisations look to have reached a local peak in England (local in terms of time - may bob up again, or may not):
    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England
    Interestingly, peak hospitalisation seems to correspond to peak positive tests - which I suppose is not unexpected if large numbers of hospitalisations are incidentals.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Case summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    edited January 8

    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
    Have you sorted out the the major issue for living in New York - the lawyer to use when suing the lawyer you used to sue your regular lawyer?
    I have not yet secured a lawyer or a therapist, but I have reason to believe I’ll get a cellphone number on Monday.

    Verizon promised I’d have it last Wednesday.

    Various things seem a bit backward here, though I’ll wait a while to give a definitive report…
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Deaths

    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image
  • pingping Posts: 1,645
    Lol @ Newcastle

    Losing to Cambridge
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    London

    image
    image
    image
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,562
    I note from the Covid numbers that the hospital patient total for England has stabilised over the last three days, and admissions appear also to have stopped climbing based on the most recent available numbers. Any likelihood that we may be at or approaching peak Omicron already?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506
    The Malmesbury Monoliths are rich and beautiful flowing and wavy today. Thanks for those.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    North East

    image
    image
    image
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
    Could be! I'll watch for any signs and issue early warnings as appropriate so you can act.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    +1

    I once tried to ask Brian Cox something similar at a huge conference where he was the guest speaker. Probably fortunately for me, the 'audience questions' microphone never came my way. I am sure I would have ended up hashing the question and looking very silly ;-)

    But I would genuinely love to know the answer.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 1,506

    I've let OGH know the problem with the images rendering in the thread header.

    Rendered so well for me I am wondering what’s inside the tent.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 10,078
    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    I read the long piece in the Atlantic with interest.

    It’s still not clear this was a directed insurrection, ie one consciously planned by Trump and/or his consiglieres. Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, but was it consciously inciting a coup?

    I do find it weird though that some of the insurrectionists seemed to decide that Pence needed to be dealt with, though. I thought Pence was considered “one of us”, until the moment he decided he wasn’t.
    Now you're living there it'll be interesting if anything about Trumpery comes to look at all different to you compared to viewing it from over here.
    Given I am living in the citadel of woke, who knows maybe I’ll react by becoming slightly Trumpish.
    Citadel of woke? SF? Portland OR? DC?
    Manhattan!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,251
    edited January 8
    Lord Sumption has some brilliant insights in to the intersection between law and politics, also his ideas about the absurdity of the pursuit of safety through laws expanding empire, which have heavily influenced me. These are set out in the reith lectures, which are well worth listening to, particularly the first couple.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m8

    His other stuff is a bit meh.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    Because the expansion of the universe is not subject to the limitation of C; it doesn't involve bits of universe moving relative to each other at more than 300,000k/s, it's more that the kilometres themselves get bigger.

    I think

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,443

    *🐎

    I would have been better betting on pond life today.

    Malcs early strike, again doesn’t go winless. And two seconds Malc, do you get anything for them?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kux1j1ccsgg

    e.g. 5:30

    What you needed today - pond life, with 8 legs for extra speed.
  • LOL @ the score at Sid James Park.

    World's richest club indeed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    I almost wish the AG would bring the question before the Court of Appeal, as I doubt their jurisprudence would be quite so rusty as his has become.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,024

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    +1

    I once tried to ask Brian Cox something similar at a huge conference where he was the guest speaker. Probably fortunately for me, the 'audience questions' microphone never came my way. I am sure I would have ended up hashing the question and looking very silly ;-)

    But I would genuinely love to know the answer.
    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/102-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/the-big-bang/594-how-has-light-from-13-billion-years-ago-not-passed-us-by-beginner
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    You forgot Saint Margaret of Grantham surely?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 22,266
    edited January 8
    England hospital numbers:

    06/01 16,058
    07/01 16,163
    08/01 16,034

    New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.

    Time to talk about removing restrictions.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,621
    pigeon said:

    I note from the Covid numbers that the hospital patient total for England has stabilised over the last three days, and admissions appear also to have stopped climbing based on the most recent available numbers. Any likelihood that we may be at or approaching peak Omicron already?

    I think that in England at least, transitions have already peeked, reported cases and hospitalisations are both lagging indicators. Reported cases only by a bit but are also affected by Bank holiday effect.

    I was surprised to see the total in hospital has also dropped very slightly today! it feels too soon, and I suspect will be revised up slightly in the next few days.

    Time now, or very soon, to drop the last of the restrictions, in particular the 7 day minimum isolation even for non-symptomatic and masks in schools
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    COVID Summary

    - Cases are up, but slowing. R is massively down everywhere. London is now flat. NI is getting hit pretty hard.

    image

    - Admissions - going up, but the R is, again, dropping.
    - Mechanical ventilator beds - even taking not account missing data for Scotland & NI, definitely down.
    - Deaths. We are seeing the long expected rise, sadly. Gradual - but I wonder if we are going to see coming thing like London, which was hit early -

    image

    image
  • RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,621

    England hospital numbers:

    06/01 16,058
    07/01 16,163
    08/01 16,034

    New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.

    Time to talk about removing restrictions.

    They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 509
    V-OT

    As I'm besmirching the intelligence of our elderly judges. I would like to put myself forward for the next supreme court vacancy.

    Why you ask. Well I've been playing Wordle and managed to find the word in two.

    I'll accept attorney general as I feel two would be beyond the current occupant and I may return some rigour to the office.


    Wordle 203 2/6

    🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

    https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/wordle/
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    BigRich said:

    pigeon said:

    I note from the Covid numbers that the hospital patient total for England has stabilised over the last three days, and admissions appear also to have stopped climbing based on the most recent available numbers. Any likelihood that we may be at or approaching peak Omicron already?

    I think that in England at least, transitions have already peeked, reported cases and hospitalisations are both lagging indicators. Reported cases only by a bit but are also affected by Bank holiday effect.

    I was surprised to see the total in hospital has also dropped very slightly today! it feels too soon, and I suspect will be revised up slightly in the next few days.

    Time now, or very soon, to drop the last of the restrictions, in particular the 7 day minimum isolation even for non-symptomatic and masks in schools
    I think those have in effect dropped themselves. Mask refusal was an issue last week and with the government decision to announce that actually they have no idea whether it's of any use that's only going in one direction.

    Similarly, the situation in the NHS coupled with the implosion of the testing system means isolation for the asymptomatic is likely to be a dead letter within about a fortnight.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564

    RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
    Space itself got bigger, so nothing actually broke the speed of light. The galaxies on a balloon analogy is a good one. The galaxies themselves are at rest, but space (the balloon) is expanding.

    I don't really understand your second question.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    pigeon said:

    I note from the Covid numbers that the hospital patient total for England has stabilised over the last three days, and admissions appear also to have stopped climbing based on the most recent available numbers. Any likelihood that we may be at or approaching peak Omicron already?

    I think so. Omigone quite soon by the looks of it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,293
    edited January 8
    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    Trump's not going to shag you so you don't have to go through this logic defying defence of the indefensible all the time.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,212
    edited January 8
    To early to call a nationwide peak IMO, we need another week to wash the holiday data out of the system.

    We can be slightly more confident in London, which had the outbreak earlier.

    Not clear that Plan B has made much difference, other than to trash the hospitality sector before Christmas.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 22,266
    BigRich said:

    England hospital numbers:

    06/01 16,058
    07/01 16,163
    08/01 16,034

    New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.

    Time to talk about removing restrictions.

    They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
    Possibly - I was surprised to see it reported.

    But its interesting that the number on ventilators has been falling - which suggests that those being hospitalised with Omicron are less seriously ill and so are likely to be leaving hospital sooner.

    There's also the possibility that the number of anti-vaxxers not previously infected has now reached such minimal levels that they're having less of an effect on hospital numbers.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,212
    An on that note, I’m off down the pub to do my bit.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 894
    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    What complete nonsense this is. The Democrats never tried to overturn the 2016 election. Much less embrace an armed, violent invasion of Congress to do so.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    Trump's not going to shag you so you don't have to go through this logic defying defence of the indefensible all the time.
    Really? He fucked every American by his actions, so surely MrEd must have been included?
  • Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    You forgot Saint Margaret of Grantham surely?
    Nah, Thatcher was a scientist, she read chemistry, Blair read Jurisprudence, Sumption read medieval history then law at Oxford.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,779
    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    Because the expansion of the universe is not subject to the limitation of C; it doesn't involve bits of universe moving relative to each other at more than 300,000k/s, it's more that the kilometres themselves get bigger.

    I think

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
    @IshmaelZ will you be responding to the messages I sent you? Regards kjh
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    Because the expansion of the universe is not subject to the limitation of C; it doesn't involve bits of universe moving relative to each other at more than 300,000k/s, it's more that the kilometres themselves get bigger.

    I think

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
    @IshmaelZ will you be responding to the messages I sent you? Regards kjh
    CBA
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,779
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    Because the expansion of the universe is not subject to the limitation of C; it doesn't involve bits of universe moving relative to each other at more than 300,000k/s, it's more that the kilometres themselves get bigger.

    I think

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
    @IshmaelZ will you be responding to the messages I sent you? Regards kjh
    CBA
    Fair enough. Doesn't say an awful lot about you though. What you typed last night was clearly incorrect and an apology is not that difficult.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015

    RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
    The Wikipedia entry is perhaps some help ?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,621

    BigRich said:

    England hospital numbers:

    06/01 16,058
    07/01 16,163
    08/01 16,034

    New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.

    Time to talk about removing restrictions.

    They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
    Possibly - I was surprised to see it reported.

    But its interesting that the number on ventilators has been falling - which suggests that those being hospitalised with Omicron are less seriously ill and so are likely to be leaving hospital sooner.

    There's also the possibility that the number of anti-vaxxers not previously infected has now reached such minimal levels that they're having less of an effect on hospital numbers.
    One other thing is that the disappearance of Delta, 3 weeks ago there was still plenty of Delta about, which means (one week infection to hospitalisation and 2 more weeks hospitalisation to discharge) we are still discharging Delta Patents from hospital but very few Delta cases going in to hospital now.
  • Non league Kidderminster beating Championship Reading!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    What complete nonsense this is. The Democrats never tried to overturn the 2016 election. Much less embrace an armed, violent invasion of Congress to do so.
    Simple question - would you condemn HRC’s 2016 campaign deliberately presenting false evidence to a FISA court to have the FBI spy on their political opponent? And do you think it’s a legitimate tactic?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    Non league Kidderminster beating Championship Reading!

    You must be Kidding.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,659

    To early to call a nationwide peak IMO, we need another week to wash the holiday data out of the system.

    We can be slightly more confident in London, which had the outbreak earlier.

    Not clear that Plan B has made much difference, other than to trash the hospitality sector before Christmas.

    What trashed hospitality was the media and scientists all screaming "Ohmyfuckingcron - we're all going to die!!!!!" - and consequently, most sane people deciding to hold off having big Christmas gatherings.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,247

    RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
    There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.

    The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    Trump's not going to shag you so you don't have to go through this logic defying defence of the indefensible all the time.
    Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,446
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    Because the expansion of the universe is not subject to the limitation of C; it doesn't involve bits of universe moving relative to each other at more than 300,000k/s, it's more that the kilometres themselves get bigger.

    I think

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
    @IshmaelZ will you be responding to the messages I sent you? Regards kjh
    CBA
    Fair enough. Doesn't say an awful lot about you though. What you typed last night was clearly incorrect and an apology is not that difficult.
    Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you are the guy who suggested that I was "believing what Leon posted" as if I am incapable of forming my own judgment based on the sources available. Either you intended to be offensive, in which case fk off, or you are too stupid to see how offensive that is, in which case also fk off.

    but if you are someone else altogether then I am deeply sorry and hereby undertake never to repeat the allegations complained about from now until the last syllable of recorded time.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
    Space itself got bigger, so nothing actually broke the speed of light. The galaxies on a balloon analogy is a good one. The galaxies themselves are at rest, but space (the balloon) is expanding.

    I don't really understand your second question.
    Thanks for the explanations on space/time for those who responded.

    The second question was that I'd have thought we'd be looking at the universe as it had expanded when the light was emitted, not as expanded as it is now.

    But it seems like despite the light travelling towards us it is still expanding away from us as time goes on too. Despite the fact the expansion took place after the light leaving it's point of origin, which seems counterintuitive to me.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 894
    MrEd said:

    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    What complete nonsense this is. The Democrats never tried to overturn the 2016 election. Much less embrace an armed, violent invasion of Congress to do so.
    Simple question - would you condemn HRC’s 2016 campaign deliberately presenting false evidence to a FISA court to have the FBI spy on their political opponent? And do you think it’s a legitimate tactic?
    What false evidence was knowingly presented?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    ydoethur said:

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    Trump's not going to shag you so you don't have to go through this logic defying defence of the indefensible all the time.
    Really? He fucked every American by his actions, so surely MrEd must have been included?
    Well, I’m not American so I’m lucky. Mind you, that does mean it’s BJ…
  • ydoethur said:

    Non league Kidderminster beating Championship Reading!

    You must be Kidding.
    Believe what you're Reading!

    When Walker's crisps first did their books for schools tokens they called it NATIONAL YEAR OF READING. I briefly wondered wtf Reading could have done to deserve its own "national year"!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    ping said:

    Great news from the James Webb.

    Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.

    Can someone explain something to me please?

    I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.

    But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?

    Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?

    It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
    The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
    Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.

    I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.

    But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.

    These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
    Space itself got bigger, so nothing actually broke the speed of light. The galaxies on a balloon analogy is a good one. The galaxies themselves are at rest, but space (the balloon) is expanding.

    I don't really understand your second question.
    Thanks for the explanations on space/time for those who responded.

    The second question was that I'd have thought we'd be looking at the universe as it had expanded when the light was emitted, not as expanded as it is now.

    But it seems like despite the light travelling towards us it is still expanding away from us as time goes on too. Despite the fact the expansion took place after the light leaving it's point of origin, which seems counterintuitive to me.
    The light has to pass through space, but as space is expanding it has to go a further distance than it had to when emitted.

    So A->B may have only been (say) 1,000 light years when it was emitted, but the universe expanded by a factor of (say) 1,000,000 in a year (these are just made up numbers), so it now has to travel for a billion years to traverse that distance.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 12,212

    To early to call a nationwide peak IMO, we need another week to wash the holiday data out of the system.

    We can be slightly more confident in London, which had the outbreak earlier.

    Not clear that Plan B has made much difference, other than to trash the hospitality sector before Christmas.

    What trashed hospitality was the media and scientists all screaming "Ohmyfuckingcron - we're all going to die!!!!!" - and consequently, most sane people deciding to hold off having big Christmas gatherings.

    Well yes, there is that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801

    To early to call a nationwide peak IMO, we need another week to wash the holiday data out of the system.

    We can be slightly more confident in London, which had the outbreak earlier.

    Not clear that Plan B has made much difference, other than to trash the hospitality sector before Christmas.

    What trashed hospitality was the media and scientists all screaming "Ohmyfuckingcron - we're all going to die!!!!!" - and consequently, most sane people deciding to hold off having big Christmas gatherings.

    What caused most people to hold off was the cases zooming to interesting heights

    image
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 4,141
    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    kle4 said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Farooq said:

    stodge said:

    Farooq said:


    Actually, I tried to avoid this in my longer post but I do think Trump is properly evil. It doesn't suit my argument to say it, but there we are. I wouldn't use that word for very many people. I'm struggling to think of other living politicians that it applies to. Possible Duterte, but I don't know enough about the Philippines to be sure about that.
    Obviously I'm excluding undemocratic countries here. Evil rises easier when the consent of the people is not a determinant.

    I disagree.

    I don't consider Trump to be "evil" - an appalling individual in many respects but his worldview is that of the American Nationalist. There's a hint of Lindbergh ("America First") and also of Nixon (only Nixon could go to China, only Trump could go to North Korea).

    He represented a reversal of decades of "global" presidents going back to FDR. From FDR to Obama, all Presidents were global leaders whose primary purpose was the furthering of American values (call them "Western" if you want) and confronting the other non-American ideologies whether Communism or Islamic fundamentalism or Juche or whatever.

    Trump saw (rightly you can argue) America had taken on this burden and was carrying a whole lot of other countries (the one thing Trump did get right was shaming European countries on defence spending and their contribution to NATO). Oddly enough, he chose the financial argument in terms of influence just as Thatcher did in the early 80s within the EEC,.

    The other side of this was whether the approach of successive Presidents had been in any way effective either in promoting American (and by definition western) security or whether America was just pouring money down a big hole with little to show. Trump took a very different approach - he reached out personally to Putin, Xi, Kim Jong-Un and others offering the hand of economic friendship in exchange for a toning down of the confrontational rhetoric.

    Voters like politicians who put their country first - it's obvious but it's worth saying. There aren't many votes in overt internationalism. Trump's failure was, I would argue, he didn't have a single tangible success to show for four years of this direction. You can argue some of what he was trying to do would take decades to come to fruition but in truth, and perhaps he was frustrated by the establishment in the State Department and elsewhere, he achieved almost nothing.
    It isn't Trump's prioritisation of America that leads me to put him in the "evil" category. You'd catch far too many people in the net doing that. It's the fact that he's a user, a bigot, a selfish, self-aggrandising fool who breaks little people on the wheel of his narcissism, a corrupt, democracy-threatening arsehole, a self-pitying, whining crybaby, a fat lump of flesh with a cruel streak as wide as the Hudson and a penchant for petty revenge. He has nothing good in his soul.
    “Let he who is without sin…”
    ...cast the first stone. I've thrown no stones, I've used words.

    Or are you implying that I'm somehow just as bad? You're probably wrong, but happily I've never stood for election and have no intention of doing so. I know that every time I go to cast a ballot there are multiple people on the ticket who are better than me. I do not think Trump is better than me, though. So even if I am AS BAD as Trump, I'm better by virtue of recognising my own unsuitability for public office.
    TBH, I don’t really care. My concern is whether someone governs well, and well means a wide spectrum of affairs. Labelling people as “evil” should be reserved for those who are truly evil such as Hitler and Stalin. Otherwise it becomes cheap.
    I mean, if you'd read the whole lead up to that you'd see that I have said as much. I do not throw the word about liberally.
    It's sort of interesting that some people want to cancel the word "evil" as if humans these days are incapable of being evil any more. That can't be true. We haven't evolved past that.
    It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t see Trump as evil - he’s got mainly bad qualities but he doesn’t cross that line. Not do I see Biden as evil, even though he waved off Afghans falling to their deaths from planes “yes but that was 5 days ago.” People do distasteful things but it’s not evil.
    Biden continued Trump's plan - probably the wrong thing to do.
    Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election - as shown by the recounts and court cases. That's a coup attempt in the world's most important democracy where 5 people died.
    If that's not evil would you perhaps describe it as 'naughty'?
    The Red Mist around Trump is descending again.

    My comment on Biden and Afghanistan was around his waving away of people dying in an horrific way as a minor detail. It was the behaviour one might expect of a sociopath. The wider Afghan policy is a separate issue

    Re the election, I’m sure there’s an element here you’d love me to describe as a Jan 6 loving Trumpist. But, as the records on here state, I condemned both his attempts on Jan 6th and in the states, and was the first on here to flag his tactics.

    FWIW though, I don’t think Jan 6th was an insurrection and neither does the FBI. No one has been charged with insurrection and treason. Trump was stupid, irresponsible and dangerously reckless but, if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever.

    You raise an interesting point though. No losing Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988 has said they lost fair and square. Gore, Kerry, Clinton all said they were cheated. gore went to the SC, Clinton was caught on camera in 2019 for saying she was cheated out of the election. On the latter, what responsibility does she bear for contributing to the poison in the US? Or is it ok because she’s a Democrat and tried to undermine Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant as opposed to a riotous assembly?
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs
    Don’t get me wrong, I think if, in some parallel universe, the rioters miraculously managed to complete overturn the results, get Congress to somehow confirm Trump as President and face down the authorities, Trump would have said “no, this is wrong”. He totally would have grabbed it
    .
    But so would have HRC in my opinion. She’s a power maniac. The fact she is even considering a 2024 run shows that. My point - again - is that grabs for power come in different forms. The view of Trump as uniquely evil is dangerous because it blinds people to others’ bad intentions and actions. Deliberately lying to get a FISA warrant to spy on your opponents campaign should be considered dangerous behaviour not overlooked because “it’s not Trump”
    One doesn't have to turn a blind eye to the actions of others, or see Trump as a unique evil, to think arguments that lean toward suggesting an equivalence are wholly wrong. There may well be a spectrum of wrong doing or ill intent, but it is surely uncontroversial to note not all will be at the same point on that spectrum. Not all will agree about Trump's place there, but those thinking he is at the very extreme end are not, by doing so, ignoring any others.

    From last thread - reply to Mr Ed
    "if it was a planned coup, it was the worst one ever"
    It didn't succeed because one man, Mike Pence, refused to do Trump's bidding. He wanted to and consulted Dan Quayle (of all people) and was told he didn;t have any option but to do his ceremonial duty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIGik9MJzcs

    The argument that something couldn't be planned because it didn't work is one of the weirder ones out there. The Salisbury poisonings saw that crop up. On this, events are clearly not entirely at behest of a single individual or group, things won't go exactly as they intend, but so much of the action and rhetoric leading to that potential action meant it is, I contest, unlikely the possibility was not considered.

    Between Tony Blair and Jonathan Sumption, Oxford really does produce third rate jurists.

    The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/make-no-mistake-colston-four-verdict-undermined-rule-law/

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1479805731733970950

    Sumpton is one of those people who seems to be all over the media all of the time solely on the basis that he's a posh bloke who has opinions about things.
    He's an intelligent and usually persuasive man. But on more emotive subjects he seems to get carried away with himself, and may enjoy the limelight.
    You’re misinterpreting my point @kle4 which is not usually like you. My point is that both the losing parties in the 2016 and 2020 elections effectively instigated attempted coups to overturn or, at least, seriously damage the incumbent. Both used different means - playing up to their different strengths - but the end goal was the same.

    That’s dangerous because you then fall into the “we have to destroy democracy to protect democracy” trap. What I find most fascinating - and worrying - is that no one (and I mean no one) who has commented on the argument - has seen it fit to condemn that one Presidential candidate deliberately presenting false evidence to a special court to have the FBI spy on their opponent. And nor have they said that’s a “crock of sh1t” so we can at least get into the argument of showing data sources and evidence. It’s almost as though your belief in the other side as uniquely evil means that any means, fair or foul, is legitimate.

    What complete nonsense this is. The Democrats never tried to overturn the 2016 election. Much less embrace an armed, violent invasion of Congress to do so.
    Simple question - would you condemn HRC’s 2016 campaign deliberately presenting false evidence to a FISA court to have the FBI spy on their political opponent? And do you think it’s a legitimate tactic?
    What false evidence was knowingly presented?
    Several parts. Amongst others, Christopher Steele had strong evidence from multiple sources that Trump had links with the Russians when he didn’t and the HRC campaign knew that and that the FISA court wasn’t told that Steele was being paid by the HRC campaign to investigate Trump but instead told it was independent evidence.

    Its why most people who were pushing the Russiagate narrative most strongly are now running away from it as though it’s got anthrax and one or two have even apologised. The indictments have already been going out on deliberately presenting false evidence
Sign In or Register to comment.