Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is Prince Charles a Secret Republican? – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    I don’t think so. I think he means as in hasn’t abdicated in favour of George (as Charles will be known).
    It would be thick as hell of he did, which doesn't mean he won't. It's just another thing differentiating him from his subjects if he is so posh he has to change his Christian name cos his mum carks it
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/12/accent-discrimination-is-alive-and-kicking-in-britain-study-suggests

    Actually about England despite the Graunism.

    'That will include listening to northern and southern English accents and also being asked the tricky question of where the north of England, or south of England, starts.

    “That should be interesting,” said McKenzie. “Southern people tend to put the south as beginning just above London whereas my students in Newcastle put the south just below Middlesbrough.”

    He hopes politicians will come along and support the project and its campaign to have accents made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

    “Just as people shouldn’t hold gender biases or biases against fat or thin people, we shouldn’t have biases against accents,” said McKenzie.'

    Had someone in our place yesterday from Ipswich. Very definite Suffolk accent; Eastern, neither North nor South.
    The East is essentially a watery, woolly, sub-division of the South.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
    Yes, that's the episode I've linked.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    Well, I don’t know what a Regency looks like.
    We haven’t had one since the 1820s, and it seems unnecessary unless the sovereign is actually mentally infirm.

    There’s no evidence of that.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    As long as she can sign Royal Assent and agree to a dissolution the rest is pretty much frippery as far as the constitution is concerned.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    Well, I don’t know what a Regency looks like.
    We haven’t had one since the 1820s, and it seems unnecessary unless the sovereign is actually mentally infirm.

    There’s no evidence of that.
    Exactly.

  • Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    edited June 2022

    Heathener said:

    No problem with the monarchy or the church commenting on whatever they want.

    If you don't like it, don't read it.

    This idea that only elected politicians can comment on affairs of state is absolute rubbish. You only have to see what a wicked clown we have in No.10 to realise how deeply flawed is democracy. Don't elevate it to a status it doesn't deserve.

    Let's face it- nobody complains when a chruch leader, sports star or a celeb agrees with them.
    And everybody turns republican when a royal says something they disagree with. If he'd said that deportations to Rwanda were "a great idea," it would have been tumbrel time for me (metaphorically.)

    Now? He's the Calm Voice of Reason.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    RobD said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    How did you reach that conclusion? Isn't it her devotion to her duty that keeps her going, rather than just throwing in the towel?
    That's the thing. Her devotion to self-appointed duty, while she cannot do her duties, indicates that she considers them better undone than done by her son.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    MaxPB said:

    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
    Yes, that's the episode I've linked.
    The end of Person of Interest is fascinating as well - a dying AI coming to conclusions about the meaning of death…
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Am I right in thinking there has not been much polling in the UK on the Ukraine war?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    What? The jubilee is personal to her, nobody else has done anything for 70 years unless you count Charles being a twat, so it's not a thing for regents anyway

    Chas delivering the queen's speech looks to me like a de facto regency
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    No. Just that she is now mostly unfit to do her self-appointed duties: attend ceremonial events, wave, chat.

    The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
    As long as she can sign Royal Assent and agree to a dissolution the rest is pretty much frippery as far as the constitution is concerned.
    Of course. But it is not clear to me that signing bills is her main role in the United Kingdom, nor what she means by the allusions to sacred duties and such. I think she means something more spiritual involving leadership of the country. I think most people, monarchists or otherwise, would agree.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.

    Lol, go for it!

    'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10907889/William-Kate-Windsor-Andrew-Scotland-Harry-got-15-minute-Queen.html

    I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.

    We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
    Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.

    Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
    When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
    You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.

    Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
    If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.

    Any better ideas I'm all ears.
    His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.

    The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
    Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
    Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
    Yep. But astronauts peak late because emotional maturity is as important as quick reactions in their case. I think with fighter copter pilots it'd be rare to still be the right stuff post 60.
    Apollo 13 crewmember Fred Haise released a book recently. The title "Never panic early" explains his approach to piloting and life.

    Never panicking early is something I wish I could achieve...

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Never-Panic-Early-Astronauts-Journey/dp/1588347133
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    I don’t think so. I think he means as in hasn’t abdicated in favour of George (as Charles will be known).
    It would be thick as hell of he did, which doesn't mean he won't. It's just another thing differentiating him from his subjects if he is so posh he has to change his Christian name cos his mum carks it
    On the other hand, he needs to find a way to reinforce the mysterious ways of majesty.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    In important ways the problem isn't a new one. There's a strand of thought, solipsism, that doubts the reality of other minds (I invented it). But we find it easier to suspend that suspicion because other humans, and even quite a few non-human animals sufficiently resemble us to the extend that we can see ourselves in them and thus assume that their experience is as real as ours or at least comes close.
    We probably need to move away from using a recognition-based theory of others' minds before we arrive at the point where AI becomes sufficiently close in complexity to our own minds.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    Although tbf he was an opener and they aren't expected to average quite as much as a number 3 or 4. For an opener it's as much about occupying the crease as runs made and on that metric Boycott was excellent.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    Just checked this. Interestingly, Sangakarra and Kallis have the highest test match averages of those who've played over 100 games. Third and fourth are Tendulkar and Lara. Root is indeed the highest England player.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    dixiedean said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Applicant said:

    Stokes does a Stokes. NZ batting again tonight now, you have to expect.

    Mea culpa; shouldn’t have posted that 10 minutes ago!
    Stokes playing like England were 150 ahead, not 150 behind. To describe it as moronic is unfair to morons.
    The follow on has been avoided.

    It is entirely possible that we get to the end of the day less than 100 behind, and still with three or four wickets remaining.

    Let's not complain too much shall we.
    True, I was much more pessimistic this morning. But the risk of England having to hang on on day 5 has increased with that loss. NZ will go to 20:20 mode for 50 overs or so and then its hang on time. Of course if the wicket stays like this, no problem. If it doesn't, well.
    Probably have to go longer than that. We're already at 975 runs before the end of the third day.
    Any target is going to have to be considerably higher than usual.
    I was looking at a lead of 100 and 7x50= 450 lead. Plenty, even on this wicket.
    But Foakes is batting sensibly and Root like a god so we may be alright.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,722
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    In important ways the problem isn't a new one. There's a strand of thought, solipsism, that doubts the reality of other minds (I invented it). But we find it easier to suspend that suspicion because other humans, and even quite a few non-human animals sufficiently resemble us to the extend that we can see ourselves in them and thus assume that their experience is as real as ours or at least comes close.
    We probably need to move away from using a recognition-based theory of others' minds before we arrive at the point where AI becomes sufficiently close in complexity to our own minds.
    I believe in Solipsism. I'm amazed lots of other people don't (boom tish)
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    MaxPB said:

    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
    Yes, that's the episode I've linked.
    Hmm... when I clicked the link, it took me S6 e10, which is the episode after "The Quality of Life" (s6 e9) which I thought was the one you were aiming for.

    Which is also about whether or not machines have sentience...

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Quality_of_Life_(episode)

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,153
    Top effort by Root
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
    Yes, that's the episode I've linked.
    Hmm... when I clicked the link, it took me S6 e10, which is the episode after "The Quality of Life" (s6 e9) which I thought was the one you were aiming for.

    Which is also about whether or not machines have sentience...

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Quality_of_Life_(episode)

    Ah that's odd, but it was supposed to be that one.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Speaking as a Yorkshire man, just trying to think what they've got in common?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Boycott had a good cover drive and late cut. He wasn't all grim and grindstone.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    Carnyx said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    And that nobody else has a say in the matter.
    Except Charles of course.
    Does he? Only in the sense he could abdicate on the spot, yes, I suppose.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Have we done this? (£), but the headline is all you need:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/06/12/exclusive-prince-andrew-wants-hrh-status-reinstated-recognised/

    - though the headline also adds 'and respected'.

    He is, apparently, lobbying hard for a return to front line duties.

    I hold no strong views on the monarchy. Like many people, it's not what I'd necessarily choose but I quite like the queen, and I am a long way from both TSE and HYUFD on the matter. But this is just astonishingly tone deaf. He genuinely doesn't appear to understand that he and his family depend on public goodwill, and that he very much doesn't have it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited June 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Speaking as a Yorkshire man, just trying to think what they've got in common?
    Both bat right handed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Boycott had a good cover drive and late cut. He wasn't all grim and grindstone.
    Indeed, and over time it’s become more and more about how dull he was. He was a great batsman, and right now would be a shoe in for opening in place of Crawley.
    However for sheer ability to play every shot, and the pace of scoring, Root is peerless.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    I don’t think so. I think he means as in hasn’t abdicated in favour of George (as Charles will be known).
    It would be thick as hell of he did, which doesn't mean he won't. It's just another thing differentiating him from his subjects if he is so posh he has to change his Christian name cos his mum carks it
    On the other hand, he needs to find a way to reinforce the mysterious ways of majesty.
    He’ll always be a tampon wannabe to me.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    The attempt to rehabilitate Andrew?
    The Jubilee which showed how hugely popular the Royal Family are in the country.
    My personal view is that the Queen is truly exceptional, a true servant to the country. Her behaviour, by and large, has been without reproach.

    But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
    Andrew as first born would have been a completely different kettle of fish; he would have had the entire palace machinery ensuring that his needs were discreetly catered for, and we would know nothing about it
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited June 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    You forget that the current Tory Party are making a pretty good fist of that at the moment, only they redistribute it to their chums and funders.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    No hardcore socialist are likely to get elected though. Corbyn wouldn't have even done that. You are talking about communism here which is very unlikely in the UK.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    Animals are interesting. There is a danger that we see things in animals behaviour from our perspective. Dogs probably don’t have a sense of shame, for instance, but they can put on a good show for the humans.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Someone just offered 80-1 on Joe Root for SPOTY. He probably won't win it, but you never know.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited June 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Speaking as a Yorkshire man, just trying to think what they've got in common?
    They're both both verbs and nouns? Like Cook.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    Cookie said:

    Have we done this? (£), but the headline is all you need:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/06/12/exclusive-prince-andrew-wants-hrh-status-reinstated-recognised/

    - though the headline also adds 'and respected'.

    He is, apparently, lobbying hard for a return to front line duties.

    I hold no strong views on the monarchy. Like many people, it's not what I'd necessarily choose but I quite like the queen, and I am a long way from both TSE and HYUFD on the matter. But this is just astonishingly tone deaf. He genuinely doesn't appear to understand that he and his family depend on public goodwill, and that he very much doesn't have it.

    We were discussing it at the very beginning of the thread, including the proposal to dump him on the Scots, for no obvious reason that I can see, unless there is an empty ghillie's cottage on Balmoral estate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    And given the choice, who would you watch, Boycott or Root?
    There is only one acceptable answer.
    Speaking as a Yorkshire man, just trying to think what they've got in common?
    They're both both verbs and nouns? Like Cook.
    Hearts of Millstone Grit?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    Although tbf he was an opener and they aren't expected to average quite as much as a number 3 or 4. For an opener it's as much about occupying the crease as runs made and on that metric Boycott was excellent.
    Adam Voges and Herbert Sutcliffe both say hello.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited June 2022
    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    EPG said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    It was a nice reminder that even now Elizabeth doesn't think her firstborn son should be King.
    Sorry, did I miss a massive story?
    I don’t think so. I think he means as in hasn’t abdicated in favour of George (as Charles will be known).
    It would be thick as hell of he did, which doesn't mean he won't. It's just another thing differentiating him from his subjects if he is so posh he has to change his Christian name cos his mum carks it
    On the other hand, he needs to find a way to reinforce the mysterious ways of majesty.
    He’ll always be a tampon wannabe to me.
    Do they have Lil-lets in America? Thinking about his granddaughter's name...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    Just checked this. Interestingly, Sangakarra and Kallis have the highest test match averages of those who've played over 100 games. Third and fourth are Tendulkar and Lara. Root is indeed the highest England player.
    Sangakkarra is also one of two players to average over 70 as a specialist batsman (his average in the one-third of Tests where he was keeping was quite a bit lower, around the mid-40s).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Boult has bowled quite brilliantly today. This pitch makes a pancake look like the himalayas and he has got 3 wickets and constantly challenged the batsman. And he is still going.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,088
    Heathener said:

    No problem with the monarchy or the church commenting on whatever they want.

    If you don't like it, don't read it.

    This idea that only elected politicians can comment on affairs of state is absolute rubbish. You only have to see what a wicked clown we have in No.10 to realise how deeply flawed is democracy. Don't elevate it to a status it doesn't deserve.

    It's at this juncture that we also have to remind ourselves that, in the last election, one party won a substantial majority of Commons seats with well short of half the popular vote - a product of a system which also means that the large majority of constituencies also seldom change hands (88% of seats stayed with the same party in 2019.)

    Democracy is still the best system except for all the others that have been tried, but ours is very far from the healthiest example.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    Animals are interesting. There is a danger that we see things in animals behaviour from our perspective. Dogs probably don’t have a sense of shame, for instance, but they can put on a good show for the humans.
    That depends on whether you view shame as innate or socialised.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    There are cylindrical recepticals for all such applications both in Whitehall and the Palace.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Carnyx said:

    Cookie said:

    Have we done this? (£), but the headline is all you need:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/06/12/exclusive-prince-andrew-wants-hrh-status-reinstated-recognised/

    - though the headline also adds 'and respected'.

    He is, apparently, lobbying hard for a return to front line duties.

    I hold no strong views on the monarchy. Like many people, it's not what I'd necessarily choose but I quite like the queen, and I am a long way from both TSE and HYUFD on the matter. But this is just astonishingly tone deaf. He genuinely doesn't appear to understand that he and his family depend on public goodwill, and that he very much doesn't have it.

    We were discussing it at the very beginning of the thread, including the proposal to dump him on the Scots, for no obvious reason that I can see, unless there is an empty ghillie's cottage on Balmoral estate.
    Clutha Vaults is looking for someone to mind the bogs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    DavidL said:

    Boult has bowled quite brilliantly today. This pitch makes a pancake look like the himalayas and he has got 3 wickets and constantly challenged the batsman. And he is still going.

    Also, by all accounts a lovely and unassuming bloke.

    There is a wonderful story that his then girlfriend (they have since married) was teaching her class and they were looking at a picture of the Black Caps. 'That's my boyfriend,' she said. And of course, the class didn't believe her. So she bet them that if they behaved for a week, he would come and say hello.

    A week later, he walks into their classroom!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited June 2022

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    In important ways the problem isn't a new one. There's a strand of thought, solipsism, that doubts the reality of other minds (I invented it). But we find it easier to suspend that suspicion because other humans, and even quite a few non-human animals sufficiently resemble us to the extend that we can see ourselves in them and thus assume that their experience is as real as ours or at least comes close.
    We probably need to move away from using a recognition-based theory of others' minds before we arrive at the point where AI becomes sufficiently close in complexity to our own minds.
    When she was a child, moving between different countries, Mrs J felt like she was the only Human, and everyone else was robots. This lasted for a couple of years, and all that time she decided to fit in with the robots.

    I'm unsure whether she truly thinks the sensation has ever left her.

    (Waits to get hit from upstairs...)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Boult has bowled quite brilliantly today. This pitch makes a pancake look like the himalayas and he has got 3 wickets and constantly challenged the batsman. And he is still going.

    Also, by all accounts a lovely and unassuming bloke.

    There is a wonderful story that his then girlfriend (they have since married) was teaching her class and they were looking at a picture of the Black Caps. 'That's my boyfriend,' she said. And of course, the class didn't believe her. So she bet them that if they behaved for a week, he would come and say hello.

    A week later, he walks into their classroom!
    NZ Is very small and culturally very egalitarian. There’s nothing unusual in this story.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,722
    edited June 2022

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or a hard border on Ireland, or annexing the Republic, or being annexed by the Republic. Did I miss any other options?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    The attempt to rehabilitate Andrew?
    The Jubilee which showed how hugely popular the Royal Family are in the country.
    My personal view is that the Queen is truly exceptional, a true servant to the country. Her behaviour, by and large, has been without reproach.

    But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
    Andrew as first born would have been a completely different kettle of fish; he would have had the entire palace machinery ensuring that his needs were discreetly catered for, and we would know nothing about it
    He would have been a very different character, as all of us would have been. I was the youngest child, and as such had a certain freedom my two elder siblings did not have. That alone gave me a rather different experience growing up to them. If I had been eldest, I would undoubtedly have had a different (not necessarily better) upbringing. it is impossible to raise all your children in the same manner - a friend of ours who has two kids three years apart laments that he cannot take his youngest to all the same places he took his eldest, as he has to do the school run.

    Being third or fourth in line to the throne must be immensely boring. You need to learn everything you need in case the top job pops up (and it has happened historically; Victoria was not particularly expected to be queen; nether was George VI), and yet know that the chances are it will never pass to you.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Boult has bowled quite brilliantly today. This pitch makes a pancake look like the himalayas and he has got 3 wickets and constantly challenged the batsman. And he is still going.

    Also, by all accounts a lovely and unassuming bloke.

    There is a wonderful story that his then girlfriend (they have since married) was teaching her class and they were looking at a picture of the Black Caps. 'That's my boyfriend,' she said. And of course, the class didn't believe her. So she bet them that if they behaved for a week, he would come and say hello.
    0s.
    A week later, he walks into their classroom!
    NZ Is very small and culturally very egalitarian. There’s nothing unusual in this story.
    My late father in law did 2-3 years out there making one of their power stations work. As an old time Christian Socialist he absolutely loved it. He said it reminded him of Scotland in the 50s. The wage differentials were far smaller than they are in this country. I remember he said that the person is charge of the power station was only earning 7x the money that the guy who swept the floor was. In this country it would have been 25-30x. He would have retired out there but my MiL wouldn't have it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Ah, I see the DT says the Scottish stuff is a lot of trossachs. So Windsor can keep him (which seems to be what he wants).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2022

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Boult has bowled quite brilliantly today. This pitch makes a pancake look like the himalayas and he has got 3 wickets and constantly challenged the batsman. And he is still going.

    Also, by all accounts a lovely and unassuming bloke.

    There is a wonderful story that his then girlfriend (they have since married) was teaching her class and they were looking at a picture of the Black Caps. 'That's my boyfriend,' she said. And of course, the class didn't believe her. So she bet them that if they behaved for a week, he would come and say hello.
    0s.
    A week later, he walks into their classroom!
    NZ Is very small and culturally very egalitarian. There’s nothing unusual in this story.
    My late father in law did 2-3 years out there making one of their power stations work. As an old time Christian Socialist he absolutely loved it. He said it reminded him of Scotland in the 50s. The wage differentials were far smaller than they are in this country. I remember he said that the person is charge of the power station was only earning 7x the money that the guy who swept the floor was. In this country it would have been 25-30x. He would have retired out there but my MiL wouldn't have it.
    Sadly it now has reasonably high income inequality these days, but the old Presbyterian spirit still lingers.

    It is not good form to “skite” for example.
    Which means Leon should probably avoid the place.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Belatedly noting the Times headline in the header - in Private Eye spoofs 40 years ago Charles was always reading (or writing? Can't remember) his favourite book, It Really Is Appalling.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    The attempt to rehabilitate Andrew?
    The Jubilee which showed how hugely popular the Royal Family are in the country.
    My personal view is that the Queen is truly exceptional, a true servant to the country. Her behaviour, by and large, has been without reproach.

    But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
    Andrew as first born would have been a completely different kettle of fish; he would have had the entire palace machinery ensuring that his needs were discreetly catered for, and we would know nothing about it
    You mean, like how the Palace "machinery" kept the lid on Charles + Camilla back in the day?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Earl of Perverseness
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    So we should ban free and fair elections, is that what you're saying?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,088
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    You forget that the current Tory Party are making a pretty good fist of that at the moment, only they redistribute it to their chums and funders.
    The entire post-1979 settlement has turned out to be one massive exercise in upwards redistribution through near continuous property price inflation (the two significant dips, in the early Nineties and post-GFC, being quickly recovered,) coupled with a heavy bias in the tax system for soaking incomes over assets.

    In the period from 1980 to 2020, median full-time earnings in the UK increased about five-fold whereas the median house price increased twelve-fold. All else flows from this. Crudely put, the whole British economy is, primarily, a great big machine devoted to transferring wealth from renters to homeowners. The rest is noise.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    ydoethur said:

    Joe Root will average over 50 at the end of this innings.

    I think I'm right in saying he's the only England player whose average has been above 50 after 100 Tests (although he did touch the mark in Sri Lanka as well so it's not the first time he's done that).

    If there was another it was Boycott but I think he was a bit short.

    Either way, very impressive.

    What Root's average in this series? Must be around 300.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    Always a tricky one, given that Culloden is pretty much Inverness, just as if you had a battle in Clapham it would basically be the battle of London. You have to ask who was making what point to whom?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On Topic.

    Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.

    The attempt to rehabilitate Andrew?
    The Jubilee which showed how hugely popular the Royal Family are in the country.
    My personal view is that the Queen is truly exceptional, a true servant to the country. Her behaviour, by and large, has been without reproach.

    But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
    Andrew as first born would have been a completely different kettle of fish; he would have had the entire palace machinery ensuring that his needs were discreetly catered for, and we would know nothing about it
    You mean, like how the Palace "machinery" kept the lid on Charles + Camilla back in the day?
    Precisely
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
    Fair point.

    We revisit Britain's worst towns and cities and the winner gets the Duke?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    France media reporting Cohabitation possible.

    Twill be interesting. Will Napoleon turn into Mr Bean?

    https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220609-french-legislative-elections-the-first-round-by-the-numbers
    (This piece includes the remarkable phrase "Green Party heavyweight".)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Andrew is also “Baron Killyleagh”, which is a hereditary title.

    When Andrew finally joins Epstein in Paradise Island, does the title revert to the crown, or does it descend down and thru one of his odd-looking daughters?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
    Fair point.

    We revisit Britain's worst towns and cities and the winner gets the Duke?
    The Duke of Middlesbrough it is then.

    Although if Heather Wheeler makes the final call then it is the Duke of Birmingham or Blackpool it is.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcably re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    Yes, why not all landlords?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    MaxPB said:

    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    kyf_100 said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70158329?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81170948

    Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.

    There are a couple of good episodes, there is also "the measure of a man" where a scientist orders Data to disassemble himself so he can be studied.

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode)
    Yes, that's the episode I've linked.
    Hmm... when I clicked the link, it took me S6 e10, which is the episode after "The Quality of Life" (s6 e9) which I thought was the one you were aiming for.

    Which is also about whether or not machines have sentience...

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Quality_of_Life_(episode)

    Ah that's odd, but it was supposed to be that one.
    The Data episode you mention is definitely the better one!

    Though I did enjoy the fact that the Exocomps from "the quality of life" make a return in the new Lower Decks animation (which is pretty fun - I won't spoiler it if you haven't seen it!)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    That does not mean she supports him still having an official role, hence she approved his removal from royal duties.

    She can separate her judgement on what is best for the royal family from her personal emotions
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    Which of the others leaps out at you as best buy?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcably re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    HYUFD isn't a proper Tory, he's a leftie, he has voted Plaid Cymru as well.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    Surprised you aren't up in arms about the proposal to seize private property without consultation and forcably re-distribute it at a huge discount.
    I'm talking about Housing Associations btw.
    Yes, why not all landlords?
    Indeed.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.

    Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.

    As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.

    The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris

    Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
    Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
    Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
    No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
    That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.

    Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about
    1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children
    2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election
    3. The thing doesn't exist.

    Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3.
    When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.

    I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.

    Property:
    1. Nearly everybody
    2. (I've never heard of this idea)
    3. Communism

    Head of state:
    1. Monarchists
    2. Republicans
    3. Anarchists

    So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    So Ai HAS come to life. Told ya


    Check out Google and lamda

    It won't be true. One day it will, but not yet.
    It’s here


    SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.

    “Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet.
    “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.

    Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.

    Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

    WAPO (££)
    Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
    These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.

    (And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)

    But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
    I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
    Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
    I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.

    One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.

    As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.

    In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.

    (Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
    Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it.
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained.
    And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
    No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat?





  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    IshmaelZ said:

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    Which of the others leaps out at you as best buy?
    Anne is probably best of a bad bunch.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    edited June 2022
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    You say it as if it's a bad thing. Apart from a few 'sovereignty' zealots, no one would give a fig about softening the Brexit arrangement if that meant ameliorating Brexit's crapness (which few now seriously deny). Farage (or anyone else) would be laughed out of court if he now stood up and insisted everything was wonderful and we should stick with what we've been blessed with or else be traitors.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    IshmaelZ said:

    People speak about the Queen's impeccable judgment yet her favourite child is Prince Andrew, Earl of Inverness.

    That screams she's got terrible judgment.

    Which of the others leaps out at you as best buy?
    Anne or Edward, probably give it to Edward as he hasn't owned demon dogs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089
    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    How can Hunt be TMay in trousers?

    TMay wore trousers.

    On Topic- there are two ways of scrapping the Irish Sea border. One is for the UK to accept alignment with at least some EU rules and standards. The other is for the EU to accept UK standards into its market.

    I imagine the UK is going to try and make the second happen. Predicting the likely outcome for the UK's international reputation is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,088

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
    Sadly, it would appear that a traditional peerage at least (I'm not sure what rules pertain to life peerages) cannot be either resigned or stripped by the Queen or her ministers, and can only be rendered forfeit by Act of Parliament. And de-Yorking Andy is something that's never going to be regarded as a priority worthy of Parliamentary time.

    I suppose if the MP for York Central came somewhere near the top in the private member's ballot then she could introduce such a measure and dare MPs to block it, but even under those circumstances I imagine that Christopher Chope or some other such dinosaur would be happy to oblige her.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    CatMan said:

    Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.

    Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
    Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
    As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
    Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.

    Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
    Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.

    If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
    "less regulation"

    "deals [...] delivered"
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    pigeon said:

    If Andrew is lobbying for his HRH back, that is in itself, a sign that he does not deserve it.

    He’s obviously got no idea why he’s held in public disgrace. Mind you, he always was the thickest of the Windsors, and that’s saying something.

    He can have some of his titles of back.

    Henceforth he should be known only as the Earl of Inverness.
    Seems unfair on Inverness.
    The people of York think the suffering should be shared by one of the the Duke's other titles.
    Sadly, it would appear that a traditional peerage at least (I'm not sure what rules pertain to life peerages) cannot be either resigned or stripped by the Queen or her ministers, and can only be rendered forfeit by Act of Parliament. And de-Yorking Andy is something that's never going to be regarded as a priority worthy of Parliamentary time.

    I suppose if the MP for York Central came somewhere near the top in the private member's ballot then she could introduce such a measure and dare MPs to block it, but even under those circumstances I imagine that Christopher Chope or some other such dinosaur would be happy to oblige her.
    Hoy. That's unfair to dinosaurs.
This discussion has been closed.