Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees
Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.
Adults must minimise indoors contact.
Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated Up to 500 if vaccinated.
Universities can resume distance learning.
Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50
Private parties: max 20 must be seated.
Restrictions on sports events indoors
Etc
Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.
We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.
The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.
As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.
Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.
If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.
I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.
He's used to playing against the crowd though. But, yes it might be on another level this time. Also the disrupted prep and leakage of energy. For these ressons I've layed him at 2.7.
What is the position of your bet if he doesn't play?
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
Do you think the BJ PM at next election 11/8 and SKS Lab Leader until at least 2024 2/5 with Ladbrokes are good value?
Yes.
And the reason is a simple one: Conservative MPs won't simply jettison Johnson because he's "a bit unpopular". He either needs to be extremely unpopular (think consistent 10-15 deficits in the polls, plus losing a whole bunch of traditional Tory councils) or to be quite unpopular and there to be an obvious King over the Water.
Thatcher in 1990 was done in by there being an obvious challenger (Heseltine) who appeared to turn a ten point Labour lead into a small Conservative one.
Major, on the other hand, survived because there was no clear alternative.
Who is the alternative? Who is the charismatic challenger willing to stick the knife in?
Agree with all of that, and it's an excellent tip from OGH (which I have followed). Having said that, Boris is a busted flush, and it's not impossible that someone who fits your criteria emerges from obscurity before the next election.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
Option B, which is a straight 2 out of 4 chance i.e. 50%.
Option A gives you a 1/4 chance in each bag, so 1/16 you get green in both, 6/16 (i.e. 37.5%) that you get green exactly once, and 9/16 that you get it in neither.
I'm not sure whether two greens is a win or a loss but either way the odds are with A.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
B is better, I think. Easiest to work it from the losing perspective for A, so it's 3/4 * 3/4 = 56.25% of losing, which is worse than the 50:50 he has with option b.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
Option B, which is a straight 2 out of 4 chance i.e. 50%.
Option A gives you a 1/4 chance in each bag, so 1/16 you get green in both, 6/16 (i.e. 37.5%) that you get green exactly once, and 9/16 that you get it in neither.
I'm not sure whether two greens is a win or a loss but either way the odds are with A.
Two greens is a win. He needs just one green. I think so far posters have answered A, B and it makes no difference!
I think I may have discovered a paradox while toying with probability questions for my daughter's GCSE.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
I don't know. You seem quite invested ?
Huh? I haven't backed him one way or another.
Just that a lot of the PB curtain twitchers seem to be getting very exercised over it.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
Cheers for the reply @darkage, appreciated. I wondered what your position was.
Generally I agree. If we banned people for posting stupid things there wouldn't be many people here and that might well include me. My argument would be:
a) Track record b) It was blindingly obvious c) The source was quite clear and despicable (I actually have no idea how they get away with this stuff. I assume the liable laws are quite lax in the USA) d) Moonshine defended the posting of it when challenged claiming it wasn't conspiracy stuff. S/he knew what s/he was doing and didn't backdown (on the contrary in fact s/he went on the attack)
Zero tolerance for Q nonsense is not unreasonable.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
Cheers for the reply @darkage, appreciated. I wondered what your position was.
Generally I agree. If we banned people for posting stupid things there wouldn't be many people here and that might well include me. My argument would be:
a) Track record b) It was blindingly obvious c) The source was quite clear and despicable (I actually have no idea how they get away with this stuff. I assume the liable laws are quite lax in the USA) d) Moonshine defended the posting of it when challenged claiming it wasn't conspiracy stuff. S/he knew what s/he was doing and didn't backdown (on the contrary in fact s/he went on the attack)
Zero tolerance for Q nonsense is not unreasonable.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
Option B, which is a straight 2 out of 4 chance i.e. 50%.
Option A gives you a 1/4 chance in each bag, so 1/16 you get green in both, 6/16 (i.e. 37.5%) that you get green exactly once, and 9/16 that you get it in neither.
I'm not sure whether two greens is a win or a loss but either way the odds are with A.
Two greens is a win. He needs just one green. I think so far posters have answered A, B and it makes no difference!
I think I may have discovered a paradox while toying with probability questions for my daughter's GCSE.
It's how you look at the question. When you look at the chances of winning you get incorrect information - you really need to look at the chances of losing....
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Cost of living vs real incomes.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
In that case though - what does Sunak or others offer that solves a cost of living crisis?
They would all be better off letting Boris cop the blame at the next election and seeking the leadership afterwards because otherwise some of the election loss would be laid at their feet.
Leaving Johnson to take his own mess is certainly an option. But his is personally tainted by all sorts of things and installing a new, clean face would at least deal with that.
And, of course, it's not quite as simple as that. It only takes 15% of Con MPs to trigger a VoNC, at which point the other MPs have to decide that now the button's been pressed, whether they have to push on; and likewise, if he is dumped, potential successors are thrust into deciding whether they want to standing or not on a timetable probably not of their choosing. It's arm-in-the-mangle stuff.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
A Cummings-esque episode I think. These guys assume rules are for little people, assumption is tested, they are indeed a class apart from the little people; then they rub it in.
@kjh It isn't my website, but I just don't think @moonshine should be banished for linking to a QAnon video. From what I could see it was just a stupid video of envelopes being handed round to former presidents at HW Bush's funeral. You can't expect people to check out the author of every video posted online.
More generally, we've had mad stuff posted on youtube and elsewhere by all sides since about 2016. You can't avert disaster by refusing to face it and hounding out people with views you don't like. I am for civilised intelligent debate in the liberal tradition. PB is one of the few remaining places on the internet; for this.
Having said all that, I don't mind the antivax provocoteurs who occasionally pop up spouting obvious nonsense being instantly banned on the basis they are probably russian trolls. That is fair enough.
Cheers for the reply @darkage, appreciated. I wondered what your position was.
Generally I agree. If we banned people for posting stupid things there wouldn't be many people here and that might well include me. My argument would be:
a) Track record b) It was blindingly obvious c) The source was quite clear and despicable (I actually have no idea how they get away with this stuff. I assume the liable laws are quite lax in the USA) d) Moonshine defended the posting of it when challenged claiming it wasn't conspiracy stuff. S/he knew what s/he was doing and didn't backdown (on the contrary in fact s/he went on the attack)
Zero tolerance for Q nonsense is not unreasonable.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A) He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for Aand B
Under A, he loses if he fails both times, which has a probability of 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.5625. So P(A, Win) = 0.4375.
Under B, his odds are 50:50.
So, he should pick B.
Yes, for A there are 16 possible combinations, of which 7 are winners.
Hang on, no. Double green is a loser, therefore only 6 are winners.
True, that's ambiguous from the OP, although it doesn't affect the answer – he should still go for Option B (one bag, one dip. two winning tokens from four, 50-50 shot)
Absolutely hate GPs. Call up today with a potential infected wound from my last surgery and just got told to fuck off and call back tomorrow morning.
Do you have access to a minor injuries unit? If yes I'd head there. (Not A and E).
In the US we have Urgent Care Clinics - walk-in locations for things like that. E.g. when our dog accidentally bit me, that's where I went for a tetanus shot. Does the UK have similar?
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
Option B, which is a straight 2 out of 4 chance i.e. 50%.
Option A gives you a 1/4 chance in each bag, so 1/16 you get green in both, 6/16 (i.e. 37.5%) that you get green exactly once, and 9/16 that you get it in neither.
I'm not sure whether two greens is a win or a loss but either way the odds are with A.
I should of course have said B, as I hope is obvious from my workings!
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
A Cummings-esque episode I think. These guys assume rules are for little people, assumption is tested, they are indeed a class apart from the little people; then they rub it in.
He seems pretty comprehensively to be subject to due process. Which seems to be ongoing including the possibility that he will be told to leave Australia.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Cost of living vs real incomes.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
In that case though - what does Sunak or others offer that solves a cost of living crisis?
They would all be better off letting Boris cop the blame at the next election and seeking the leadership afterwards because otherwise some of the election loss would be laid at their feet.
Leaving Johnson to take his own mess is certainly an option. But his is personally tainted by all sorts of things and installing a new, clean face would at least deal with that.
And, of course, it's not quite as simple as that. It only takes 15% of Con MPs to trigger a VoNC, at which point the other MPs have to decide that now the button's been pressed, whether they have to push on; and likewise, if he is dumped, potential successors are thrust into deciding whether they want to standing or not on a timetable probably not of their choosing. It's arm-in-the-mangle stuff.
That 15% - no wonder he got rid of the Remainers. Be permanent temptation else for them to take revenge on him personally with a letter to the 1922 [edit]..
On the new boundaries Kensington and Westbourne will be safe Labour but Chelsea and Fulham West would still be Tory but go Labour if they won most seats.
It is a long way from 1997 when Kensington and Chelsea was the safest Conservative seat left in the UK, hence Portillo went for it in 1999 when Alan Clark died
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
On topic, Keir is decently on track to be PM after 2024.
I would say his odds are more favourable than Boris’s at this juncture.
I don’t know if Boris will last to 2024; I suspect not. The Tory party have to believe that Rishi can turn the situation around first. He can’t, but he might look like he can for a spell.
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
Insufficient data. If it was 1% five years ago, it would now be 1.74%.
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
Insufficient data. If it was 1% five years ago, it would now be 1.74%.
This is what the test provider says: "in this section of the test, you are allowed to use common sense to choose the right answer. By applying logic to the answer choices, you can surmise that there are many jobs which cannot be done virtually, and that despite the increasing popularity of this trend, it is unlikely that a majority of employees in the US are virtual. Therefore, the correct answer is 'Probably False'."
FPT for @RochdalePioneers - many thanks for comments re implementation period.
Thanks. It's all been disrupted by covid anyway. And of course IIRC you moved up here after the original main announcement, come to think of it. I also suspect part of the problem is the fragmentation of the media - in the old days there'd be ads in the Scottish newspapers and public information filmettes on BBC Scotland and STV, Grampian and Border.
Will see what happens, but we have the alarms ready to install DIY on both my houses (one my late parent's, to be sold) so i may as well get it done! No wish to risk playing silly buggers with insurance companies or house report surveyors over what an implementation period might or might not be.
For sure they will not go round checking them , issue will arise if a) house burns down and insurance say no payout, b) you do alterations and building company / tradesmen insist you must comply blah blah , or c) you want to sell , need to get house report
a) could potentially be very expensive. OTOH how many people don’t have any, or insufficient, insurance?
I can see a lot of problems ahead. The figure given was 95% of existing smoke alarms are non-compliant. We know there are issues with people not even being aware never mind paying for new ones.
High risk then of house fires early next month with fully functioning smoke detectors getting people out safely and then insurance companies trying to get out of it because the functioning smoke detectors which did their jobs weren't the Super-Sturgeon detectors now mandated.
Won't take many of those in the press for the insurer then the entire industry and the government coming into disrepute. The function of a smoke detector is to warn people of a fire and to allow them to depart safely. Not paying out because it has the wrong kite mark on it won't exactly make them popular nor the SNP MSPs trying to take the side of the insurance company...
AIUI the kite marks have been much the same for some years - insurance companies always required proper fire alarms, which would imply a proper standard. But the new setups are certainly different in terms of more of them.
I am not sure if the new regs came in much earlier for landlords and social housing in terms of early warnings and uprated specs or not. Alarms need to be replaced on a 10 yearly cycle.
I appreciate that I am probably talking about this one too much - I am aware of the change and have the funds to install new alarms in the "reasonable period". But it looks like there will be a lot of people not-compliant. So we're facing into one of those letter vs spirit facedowns which will be interesting for policymakers of the future.
Some insurance company or other is bound to try and withhold paying for a fire when the functional and effective alarms aren't to the exact letter of the new regs. And with so many elements to them there will be so many gaps they can try and go after. Stuff like this interests me, especially when the mess is supposedly for "public safety".
Our local village municipality here in New York mandates interlinked smoke and CO detectors for all domestic homes (given that most houses in the US are essentially made of wood, I suspect that's probably a pretty standard mandate). Enforcement is effected by refusing to sign-off building permits and granting a Certificate of Occupancy if any building, electrical or plumbing work is done until the alarms are brought up to code. That means you can't sell or rent the house until you're compliant.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
There was a hell of a lot less political violence in 2021 than there was in 2020, so we are at least moving in the right direction.
Or are we only considering that political violence can arise from one side of the spectrum, and anything from the other end is "peaceful protest"?
On the new boundaries Kensington and Westbourne will be safe Labour but Chelsea and Fulham West would still be Tory but go Labour if they won most seats.
It is a long way from 1997 when Kensington and Chelsea was the safest Conservative seat left in the UK, hence Portillo went for it in 1999 when Alan Clark died
I meant the Borough not the seat. @eek was referencing the May elections.
On that you are right, if the Royal Borough went Labour it would suggest Starmer was heading for most seats at least. Though I think Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster will stay Tory even if Barnet and Wandsworth go Labour
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
Insufficient data. If it was 1% five years ago, it would now be 1.74%.
This is what the test provider says: "in this section of the test, you are allowed to use common sense to choose the right answer. By applying logic to the answer choices, you can surmise that there are many jobs which cannot be done virtually, and that despite the increasing popularity of this trend, it is unlikely that a majority of employees in the US are virtual. Therefore, the correct answer is 'Probably False'."
Was that test set before, during or after the pandemic-induced lockdowns? I would argue that my answer is correct now, but "Probably False" was correct up to March 2021.
Essentially, there are two markets - this one and the next General Election winner - which are out of sync with other. Or - at the very least - overstate the chance of Johnson being ejected before the net election.
Smarkets has the Conservatives getting a majority as a 34.5% chance - or to put it another way, they reckon it's close to a two-thirds chance that they lose their majority. If we assume that there's a roughly 5% probability that the Conservatives are so close to a majority that no alternative is possible, then that's a 60% chance that there will be a non-Conservative PM after the next election.
Which, basically, means Starmer.
And Starmer is currently rated a 14% to be next PM.
So that means the markets are rating the chances of the PM being evicted by his MPs before the next election as at least 46/60 chance - which rounding we'll call 75%.
This seems far too high. I think that Johnson is odds on to be the Conservative leader at the next election. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances as probably two-in-three.
So: buy Conservatives majority, and buy Starmer next Prime Minister.
The window where a new leader makes it all better exists, but probably isn't huge. And whist Sunak and Truss aren't terrible, neither of them is a Major campaigning-wise.
So let's suppose the Conservatives are still in trouble in 2023. If you go to all the trouble of deposing Bozza, and winning the resulting scrum, there's a fair chance that you are setting yourself up to be a Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan or Alec Douglas-Home; the fag end PM leading the lemmings over the cliff.
And whilst having the vanity to think they can do better is part of the person spec for a top politician, there's also the temptation to think that you are better off waiting to refashion the party in your own image in opposition. After all, Rishi and Liz are both pretty young.
Just because Boris should go, doesn't mean that he will go.
It's interesting working out possible windows and reasons for Boris to be shown the door.
And given that Boris has managed to get past this set of Covid restrictions and Wallpapergate seems to have finished there doesn't seem to be much in the near future that will result in your typical Tory MP wanting to replace Boris with someone else.
Also the May elections don't seem likely to contain any shock results that would result in Boris needing to be removed.
I think it's safe to say that I'm struggling to see reasons why Boris goes early unless he wants to which is surprising given how things were a month ago.
Cost of living vs real incomes.
I'd expect Labour to start pulling out a bigger lead as taxes bite, and inflation and interest rates rise. It won't happen overnight and it won't be a smooth line but I'd expect the trend to be clear over the course of a year.
And Johnson will continue to behave as if the rules don't apply to him because as far as he's concerned, his position is proof that they don't.
In that case though - what does Sunak or others offer that solves a cost of living crisis?
They would all be better off letting Boris cop the blame at the next election and seeking the leadership afterwards because otherwise some of the election loss would be laid at their feet.
Leaving Johnson to take his own mess is certainly an option. But his is personally tainted by all sorts of things and installing a new, clean face would at least deal with that.
And, of course, it's not quite as simple as that. It only takes 15% of Con MPs to trigger a VoNC, at which point the other MPs have to decide that now the button's been pressed, whether they have to push on; and likewise, if he is dumped, potential successors are thrust into deciding whether they want to standing or not on a timetable probably not of their choosing. It's arm-in-the-mangle stuff.
That 15% - no wonder he got rid of the Remainers. Be permanent temptation else for them to take revenge on him personally with a letter to the 1922 [edit]..
Which is why the 12-month rule exists: to stop a noisy minority from playing permanent disruption. Not that losing by double-figures vs close to 300 would do such a minority's cause any favours.
However, that kind of division doesn't exist within the current parliamentary Tory party and I'd think that most MPs would hold off until they really do want a leadership election. After all, they can't know beforehand that theirs won't be the triggering letter.
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
I am a lot more sanguine about the longer-term prospects for the US than this article. Sure, it is a more violent society than Western European societies. And yes, the divides are deep and widening. But I just don't see it getting anything nearly as bad as The Troubles.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
They’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Even made a big noise about how they had the power to send him home (regardless of court decision) and then… didn’t.
Seems entirely appropriate that the Aussies are shafted by poor sportsmanship.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
There was a hell of a lot less political violence in 2021 than there was in 2020, so we are at least moving in the right direction.
Or are we only considering that political violence can arise from one side of the spectrum, and anything from the other end is "peaceful protest"?
Who is “we”? Just make the point you want to make.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?
Having an English parliament using the HoC facilities? It's possible, but you'd still have to elect a separate load of Members of the English Parliament (yeah, that needs a better acronym) otherwise the Scottish separatists would endlessly whinge about their MPs being second class.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Does it matter? After all, all the inhabitants of Europe could probably have been described as non-white thousands of years ago. We're just seeing a continuation of the migration process!
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
The mighty Drake led Wales having even worse time of it. Its a bloody good job he cancelled those park runs, imagine what cases would have been like with them.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
A Cummings-esque episode I think. These guys assume rules are for little people, assumption is tested, they are indeed a class apart from the little people; then they rub it in.
He seems pretty comprehensively to be subject to due process. Which seems to be ongoing including the possibility that he will be told to leave Australia.
He has a job to do there and is trying to do it.
Sure. That's why the visa challenge failed. The Australian immigration people didn't follow their own process.
Djokovic's case is that he was unable to get the required vaccination on medical grounds because he had the virus at the time the purported vaccination was due to take place. This is not a convincing explanation given his well aired objections to vaccination.
Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?
Having an English parliament using the HoC facilities? It's possible, but you'd still have to elect a separate load of Members of the English Parliament (yeah, that needs a better acronym) otherwise the Scottish separatists would endlessly whinge about their MPs being second class.
What about using Westminster Hall?
How about the UK government meets 4 days a week in HoC. Monday or Friday is for the English only MPs, who also serve as England's UKMPs. No additional elections or facilities required.
Work from home: everyone who can shall, especially strict for state employees
Pubs and restaurants shut 23:00 and max group 8.
Adults must minimise indoors contact.
Public meetings/events max 50 if unvaccinated Up to 500 if vaccinated.
Universities can resume distance learning.
Vaccine certification needed for larger meetings: over 50
Private parties: max 20 must be seated.
Restrictions on sports events indoors
Etc
Expect Farage to fly in to stage an intervention any day now.
We see him here ... We see him there ... He's so dedicated.
The Pimpernel in mustard coloured moleskins.
As was speculated upon last night, difficult to see what's in it for the Djokovics. I assume a call was made from Farage's pa (Nigel with a falsetto voice) saying he could help, and the logic was: very fine, important English gentleman, friend of a POTUS, let's go for it!
Bizarre state of affairs. And it's spoilt my Djoko fanship. As a tennis player, I mean, not his 'body is my temple' stuff. I just can't be in the same place as the grim bunch who are jumping onto this.
Yep, iconic rivalry. But for me it makes Djoko's achievement in muscling in there all the more remarkable. Truth is, I like all of Fed Nad Andy and Djoko and each has been my fav at different times. But it's been Djoko for the last few years.
If he has any sense he will claim this has screwed up his preparation and withdraw for that reason, because if he gets to play this isn't going to go away for him. Booing in the stands for instance? Won't look good.
I have no sympathy for him but the Aussie do look to have screwed up.
He's used to playing against the crowd though. But, yes it might be on another level this time. Also the disrupted prep and leakage of energy. For these ressons I've layed him at 2.7.
What is the position of your bet if he doesn't play?
Voided if he doesn't start the tourny. Wins if he loses on court or pulls out for any other reason once it's started.
Any reason why England only legislation can’t be conducted on Monday and Tuesday, with UK wide legislation conducted on Wednesday, Thursday on Friday?
Having an English parliament using the HoC facilities? It's possible, but you'd still have to elect a separate load of Members of the English Parliament (yeah, that needs a better acronym) otherwise the Scottish separatists would endlessly whinge about their MPs being second class.
What about using Westminster Hall?
How about the UK government meets 4 days a week in HoC. Monday or Friday is for the English only MPs, who also serve as England's UKMPs. No additional elections or facilities required.
That was - by implication - the option on offer every time a devolved administration was set up. Rejected implicitly or explicitly every time by the then ruling UKG. Not sure why. EVEL didn't happen de facto till the SNP (and some Unionist MPs) abstained on principle, or de jure till 2014, so it's been a very long standing issue
Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.
Top (Topping?) trolling.
Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?
Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!
Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.
A Cummings-esque episode I think. These guys assume rules are for little people, assumption is tested, they are indeed a class apart from the little people; then they rub it in.
He seems pretty comprehensively to be subject to due process. Which seems to be ongoing including the possibility that he will be told to leave Australia.
He has a job to do there and is trying to do it.
Sure. That's why the visa challenge failed. The Australian immigration people didn't follow their own process.
Djokovic's case is that he was unable to get the required vaccination on medical grounds because he had the virus at the time the purported vaccination was due to take place. This is not a convincing explanation given his well aired objections to vaccination.
But why does that make him think he is a class apart.
He is allowed to have any view on vaccination he wants and people/border forces/legal systems are allowed to respond.
And for whatever reason not wanting to have a vaccination is an entirely logical position to hold.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
The question which is being dodged is not whether the measures are effective or not at slowing the spread of omicron. It is whether slowing the spread of omicron is actually desirable, and even if so in isolation whether the price of so doing is justified.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
I am a lot more sanguine about the longer-term prospects for the US than this article. Sure, it is a more violent society than Western European societies. And yes, the divides are deep and widening. But I just don't see it getting anything nearly as bad as The Troubles.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
About 3,500 died in the Irish troubles over 30 years. The US had 1.4 million gun deaths 1968-2011, so an extra decade. So just rebadge a fairly modest proportion of your gun homicides as political and there's your civil war, right there.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Define "white".
Also, define the meaning of "....definitely be majority white are likely to be..."
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?
(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
I’m looking forward to these racial perversities. Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.
Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
I am a lot more sanguine about the longer-term prospects for the US than this article. Sure, it is a more violent society than Western European societies. And yes, the divides are deep and widening. But I just don't see it getting anything nearly as bad as The Troubles.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
About 3,500 died in the Irish troubles over 30 years. The US had 1.4 million gun deaths 1968-2011, so an extra decade. So just rebadge a fairly modest proportion of your gun homicides as political and there's your civil war, right there.
It's still not a civil war if it's not a civil war, no matter how you redefine the statistics to make the point.
PS And 30k out of 1.5 million is 2% of the population in NI killed. Versus 0.3% of the US population (pro rata'd for timescale) dead to gun homicides.
Not saying that there is no problem with guns in the US, but you are stretching your stats well beyond the breaking point.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
Why? There was nothing white supremacist about it, there are plenty of mixed race marriages in my family. Just a factual statement of demographic trends. Mixed race is not counted as white in the census
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
The number of virtual workers: Now: x Two years ago: x/1.39 Five years ago: x/1.74
if x>50% then two years ago > 36% and five years ago > 29%
I think it's technically insufficient data as I don't see a logical absurdity - but I strongly suspect that five years ago the number of virtual workers was less than 29% so in reality it's probably false.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
What do you think should be the right answer? [Watson Glaser test]
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
Insufficient data. If it was 1% five years ago, it would now be 1.74%.
This is what the test provider says: "in this section of the test, you are allowed to use common sense to choose the right answer. By applying logic to the answer choices, you can surmise that there are many jobs which cannot be done virtually, and that despite the increasing popularity of this trend, it is unlikely that a majority of employees in the US are virtual. Therefore, the correct answer is 'Probably False'."
OK, so as long as the test specifies that you can use knowledge and experience that you have from outside the test, then that's ok.
Timmy has to pick a counter/s from two bags. In each bag there a four counters, each coloured: Green, yellow, red and blue.
He can choose A or B below:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green just once he wins.
OR
B. Alternatively, he can have one dip into one bag only but he wins if he picks either a green or yellow counter.
Which of the below gives him the best chance of winning:
1) He should take Option A 2) He should take Option B 3) His chances of winning are the same for A and B
Option B.
Calculate the complement each time. Chance of failure on first dip with Option A is 3 in 4. Second dip is a separate bag, so 3 in 4 chance of failure again. Chance of failure in both is 3*3 / 4*4 = 9/16; chance of success is therefore 7/16.
Chance of failure on Option B is 2 in 4, regardless of bag chosen. Chance of success is therefore 2/4.
Whilst Option B can be reduced to 1/2, to make them comparable, use lowest common denominator (16).
Chance of success in Option A: 7/16 Chance of success in Option B: 8/16
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
Well, under Jim Crow in theory a "single drop" was enough for discrimination. Good job DNA analysis wasn't around then.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
I am a lot more sanguine about the longer-term prospects for the US than this article. Sure, it is a more violent society than Western European societies. And yes, the divides are deep and widening. But I just don't see it getting anything nearly as bad as The Troubles.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
About 3,500 died in the Irish troubles over 30 years. The US had 1.4 million gun deaths 1968-2011, so an extra decade. So just rebadge a fairly modest proportion of your gun homicides as political and there's your civil war, right there.
It's still not a civil war if it's not a civil war, no matter how you redefine the statistics to make the point.
Yes, I am not serious about a retrospective redefinition. But as a lot of the shootings seems to have a pretty political flavour in the first place, it would take much less for the US than for most countries to slide into a shooting war.
I am still astonished by the background information in the Arbery case that there had been recent thefts of loaded rifles from unlocked vehicles.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
I’m looking forward to these racial perversities. Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.
Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.
Me too. I have both Cornish and English blood. And 5 generations back, some Dutch.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?
(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)
The causality is surely fairly simple: higher cases lead to tighter restrictions?
Of course, the restrictions in Scotland *are* helping to restrict the spread but that's an entirely different point from whether they're necessary or proportionate, which turns on the questions 'by how much' and 'at what cost'.
So it’s official - Djokovic plays and is not deported. So much for all the “experts” on here earlier saying that the Aus govt hasn’t screwed up massively.
They’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds. Even made a big noise about how they had the power to send him home (regardless of court decision) and then… didn’t.
Seems entirely appropriate that the Aussies are shafted by poor sportsmanship.
He is wrong, the Immigration Minister is still likely to deport him
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Same old, same old....any tax introduced saying revenue will specifically go to x, always ends up as just another tax.
With more of a whimper than a bang, we have recently learnt that the tax levied on sugary drinks is no longer being earmarked for the financing of anti-obesity measures for children. The unravelling of the logic and justification for the soft drinks levy is a sorry, but all too common, tale about how claims made for specific new taxes are rapidly found wanting. They swiftly become just another means of increasing the revenues controlled by Whitehall at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
Well, under Jim Crow in theory a "single drop" was enough for discrimination. Good job DNA analysis wasn't around then.
If remember correctly, 1/16 was the definition in some states.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
I’m looking forward to these racial perversities. Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.
Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.
Concepts such a mixed race, for me, rely on the concept of racial purity. That is, to be mixed race there must be other people who are not mixed race. I don't think the concept of racial purity is either helpful or interesting.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?
(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)
It's a question of onus. I think that the onus is on those who seek to restrict liberty to make the case for more severe restrictions. They can do this by: (a) demonstrating a clear benefit (nope) (b) explaining that the threat is so severe in terms of hospital admissions that precautionary measures are necessary (nope). (c) identifying some risk factors that are more severe in Scotland than in England (nope).
If they fail to do this then the nonsense of stopping sporting events being watched by more than 500 supporters, the closing of nightclubs, table service in bars and 2m restrictions in public buildings needs to stop. Now. Even if that means we look like we are copying England and were wrong to be so overly cautious.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
Who was the Senator who claimed 1/256 Indigenous ancestry?
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
I am a lot more sanguine about the longer-term prospects for the US than this article. Sure, it is a more violent society than Western European societies. And yes, the divides are deep and widening. But I just don't see it getting anything nearly as bad as The Troubles.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
About 3,500 died in the Irish troubles over 30 years. The US had 1.4 million gun deaths 1968-2011, so an extra decade. So just rebadge a fairly modest proportion of your gun homicides as political and there's your civil war, right there.
It's still not a civil war if it's not a civil war, no matter how you redefine the statistics to make the point.
Yes, I am not serious about a retrospective redefinition. But as a lot of the shootings seems to have a pretty political flavour in the first place, it would take much less for the US than for most countries to slide into a shooting war.
I am still astonished by the background information in the Arbery case that there had been recent thefts of loaded rifles from unlocked vehicles.
Gun culture is so different from the UK it is hard for most Brits to imagine it until they move to rural or ex-urban US.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
Why? There was nothing white supremacist about it, there are plenty of mixed race marriages in my family. Just a factual statement of demographic trends. Mixed race is not counted as white in the census
What percentage non-white tips you over the edge? A black grandparent? Great-grandparent?
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?
(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)
The causality is surely fairly simple: higher cases lead to tighter restrictions?
Of course, the restrictions in Scotland *are* helping to restrict the spread but that's an entirely different point from whether they're necessary or proportionate, which turns on the questions 'by how much' and 'at what cost'.
It was supposed to be a joke on correlation != causation.
You could plot a graph of cases against restrictions and conclude that as cases correlate with restrictions then restrictions cause cases. The reverse is obviously the case.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
Well, under Jim Crow in theory a "single drop" was enough for discrimination. Good job DNA analysis wasn't around then.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
Why? There was nothing white supremacist about it, there are plenty of mixed race marriages in my family. Just a factual statement of demographic trends. Mixed race is not counted as white in the census
No, not suggesting you were a supremacist (as i hope was clear). But it's a category they do like to use.
I do wonder about the notion of mixed race, though, from this point of view.
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.
It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
I’m looking forward to these racial perversities. Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.
Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.
Aren't we all ultimately "mixed race"? Years ago the BBC did a documentary on people's DNA and when asked Norman Tebbit said he expected he was a bit of a mongrel - and seemed disappointed when he found out he was almost completely British. A BNP councillor on the other hand withdrew from the program when it was established that she wasn't the 100% white she thought she was....
Comments
Under B, his odds are 50:50.
So, he should pick B.
Having said that, Boris is a busted flush, and it's not impossible that someone who fits your criteria emerges from obscurity before the next election.
Option A gives you a 1/4 chance in each bag, so 1/16 you get green in both, 6/16 (i.e. 37.5%) that you get green exactly once, and 9/16 that you get it in neither.
I'm not sure whether two greens is a win or a loss but either way the odds are with A.
That won’t be good.
Option B is a 2 in 4 chance
So the answer is 3 the chances of winning are the same.
Edit tlg is actually right - it's not the chances of losing that is more important here.
Option a is a 3/4 + a 3/4 chance of losing so you lose 9 out of 16 times
Option B is straightforward 50/50 bet...
So I was wrong and choice 2 is correct.
Edit - so 2)
as
A he has 1- (3/4 * 3/4) = 7/16 chance of winning
B he has 2/4 = 1/2 chance of winning
I think I may have discovered a paradox while toying with probability questions for my daughter's GCSE.
Just that a lot of the PB curtain twitchers seem to be getting very exercised over it.
And, of course, it's not quite as simple as that. It only takes 15% of Con MPs to trigger a VoNC, at which point the other MPs have to decide that now the button's been pressed, whether they have to push on; and likewise, if he is dumped, potential successors are thrust into deciding whether they want to standing or not on a timetable probably not of their choosing. It's arm-in-the-mangle stuff.
OR {Green}/{Green, yellow, red,blue} & {yellow, red,blue}/{Green, yellow, red,blue} (1/4) * (3/4) +
OR {Green}/{Green, yellow, red,blue} & {Green}/{Green, yellow, red,blue} (1/4) * (1/4)
= 3/16 + 3/16 + 1/16 = 7/16 = 0.4375
P (B) = {Green or yellow}/{Green, yellow, red,blue} = 2/4 = 0.5
Should this sentence read as follows:
A. He wins if he picks green from two dips (one dip into each of the two bags). If he picks green
justat least once he wins.B: this is 50:50, so a better option.
I hope. It's a while since I was at school!
The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.
He has a job to do there and is trying to do it.
"Virtual employees, or employees who work from home via computer, are an increasing trend. In the US, the number of virtual employees has increased 39% in the last two years and 74% in the last five years."
Is the following statement True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False or False?
"Today, a majority of the employees in the US are virtual employees."
I would say his odds are more favourable than Boris’s at this juncture.
I don’t know if Boris will last to 2024; I suspect not. The Tory party have to believe that Rishi can turn the situation around first. He can’t, but he might look like he can for a spell.
Or are we only considering that political violence can arise from one side of the spectrum, and anything from the other end is "peaceful protest"?
However, that kind of division doesn't exist within the current parliamentary Tory party and I'd think that most MPs would hold off until they really do want a leadership election. After all, they can't know beforehand that theirs won't be the triggering letter.
That said, clearly the Overton window has shifted.
PS The danger point is another Trump minority vote election victory, with much increased authoritarianism at Federal and Red State levels. But I'd see this as more likely to lead to littoral secession than civil war.
Just make the point you want to make.
Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor
More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.
Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.
The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.
The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.
An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070
We're just seeing a continuation of the migration process!
The mighty Drake led Wales having even worse time of it. Its a bloody good job he cancelled those park runs, imagine what cases would have been like with them.
What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?
And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?
Djokovic's case is that he was unable to get the required vaccination on medical grounds because he had the virus at the time the purported vaccination was due to take place. This is not a convincing explanation given his well aired objections to vaccination.
He is allowed to have any view on vaccination he wants and people/border forces/legal systems are allowed to respond.
And for whatever reason not wanting to have a vaccination is an entirely logical position to hold.
https://twitter.com/songpinganq/status/1480157037681995779?s=20
China is continuing to take its Covid approach very seriously...
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1443965583276584963?s=20
I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.
(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)
Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.
Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.
PS And 30k out of 1.5 million is 2% of the population in NI killed. Versus 0.3% of the US population (pro rata'd for timescale) dead to gun homicides.
Not saying that there is no problem with guns in the US, but you are stretching your stats well beyond the breaking point.
Now: x
Two years ago: x/1.39
Five years ago: x/1.74
if x>50% then two years ago > 36% and five years ago > 29%
I think it's technically insufficient data as I don't see a logical absurdity - but I strongly suspect that five years ago the number of virtual workers was less than 29% so in reality it's probably false.
A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.
B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.
What is A now?
Loses two times out of four.
Option A loses nine times out of sixteen, and 9/16 > 2/4, so option A is more likely to lose.
Calculate the complement each time. Chance of failure on first dip with Option A is 3 in 4. Second dip is a separate bag, so 3 in 4 chance of failure again. Chance of failure in both is 3*3 / 4*4 = 9/16; chance of success is therefore 7/16.
Chance of failure on Option B is 2 in 4, regardless of bag chosen. Chance of success is therefore 2/4.
Whilst Option B can be reduced to 1/2, to make them comparable, use lowest common denominator (16).
Chance of success in Option A: 7/16
Chance of success in Option B: 8/16
He should follow Option B
I am still astonished by the background information in the Arbery case that there had been recent thefts of loaded rifles from unlocked vehicles.
Of course, the restrictions in Scotland *are* helping to restrict the spread but that's an entirely different point from whether they're necessary or proportionate, which turns on the questions 'by how much' and 'at what cost'.
With more of a whimper than a bang, we have recently learnt that the tax levied on sugary drinks is no longer being earmarked for the financing of anti-obesity measures for children. The unravelling of the logic and justification for the soft drinks levy is a sorry, but all too common, tale about how claims made for specific new taxes are rapidly found wanting. They swiftly become just another means of increasing the revenues controlled by Whitehall at the expense of ordinary citizens.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-sugar-tax-has-predictably-fallen-flat-and-obesity-continues-to-rise-9lprw8tbn
(a) demonstrating a clear benefit (nope)
(b) explaining that the threat is so severe in terms of hospital admissions that precautionary measures are necessary (nope).
(c) identifying some risk factors that are more severe in Scotland than in England (nope).
If they fail to do this then the nonsense of stopping sporting events being watched by more than 500 supporters, the closing of nightclubs, table service in bars and 2m restrictions in public buildings needs to stop. Now. Even if that means we look like we are copying England and were wrong to be so overly cautious.
You could plot a graph of cases against restrictions and conclude that as cases correlate with restrictions then restrictions cause cases. The reverse is obviously the case.
I do wonder about the notion of mixed race, though, from this point of view.