Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
The SpaceX stuff is cool, I'll admit, but when he bid eleventy trillion or whatever it was for Twitter I knew he was just taking the piss on a planetary scale.
What will really do for Truss is being continuity Johnson.
With a handful of exceptions everybody on PB wanted to see the back of Big Dog and his lies and incompetence. Most agreed he was unfit for office even if it took some longer than others to reach that conclusion.
Along with joy at his departure came the relief that loonies like Dorries, Rees-Mogg and Braverman would never set foot in the cabinet room again. So when they all reappear when Truss wins (she owes them all) it really is going to go down like a lead balloon.
Are we then suggesting neither candidate will have the other in their Cabinet or do we think Sunak would refuse to serve under Truss and vice versa?
Presumably both will find homes for Mordaunt and Badenoch under the old adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
Do we think Javid returns to No.11 in a Sunak Government - Wallace as FS and Mordaunt as Home Secretary with a big job for Badenoch (Health, Education?).
I think, with no evidence at all, that Rishi would invite Truss into his Cabinet, and that she may well accept. I struggle to imagine the reverse.
Yes, Javid into No.11 under Rishi.
Mordaunt is not getting a big job. She should be back, but something relatively junior. Badenoch likely to go to Education. Wallace might want to stick at Defence, in which case Tugendhat could become Foreign Secretary under Rishi.
Why would Tugendhat be foreign secretary? He has no clout at all.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
What about Musk? If he walks on Mars is the bet void or lost?
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Thing is, Britain's First wanted Kemi. Not because she is a proud black woman, because they thought she would harass women and blacks and gayers and non-fascists. Suspect many Tory members have similar if slightly less extreme perspectives.
Tories like one of us. Sunak is not one of us. So he will get demolished.
Define “demolished”. Even if he loses he’ll score respectably with the members.
Define “Tories”. Since he just won the MPs and is the favourite of Tory voters if I remember right.
David Cameron was called a LD even as he was Conservative Prime Minister - nothing saves people from not being true Tories.
I don't remember that he was called a LD by any LDs.
I was a callow teenager obsessed with scifi and channel surfing and saw Fox Mulder of The X-Files on this show and I was like ooh this must be fun, five minutes I was so disappointed.
Also scared shitless that my devout muslim parents would have walked on me watching that show.
Used to be on in Taiwan. That, Friends, Home Improvements and The Thin Blue Line were the only undubbed shows on TV in English* Quite a mix of viewing. *Plenty of movie, news channels and ESPN.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Rishi Sunak - MP for 7 years. Became Junior Minister in under 3 years, reached Cabinet in 5 years, total time in Cabinet not quite 2.5 years
Liz Truss - MP for 12 years. Became Junior Minister in a little over 2 years, reached Cabinet in 4 years, total time in Cabinet not quite 7 years.
It's funny, as both have held Great Offices of State, but for quite a long time those CVs would have been both remarkably little experience as just a regular MP, but also very rapid elevation to senior level.
In historical terms, it's remarkably inexperienced. Cameron had only been an MP for 9 years before becoming Prime Minister and Johnson was on his second stint as an MP having been mayor of London but the likes of Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Major and May had all had more than a decade as MPs before becoming Prime Minister.
Someone can correct me but I think of all the above only Cameron never held one of the great offices of state at either Government or Shadow Cabinet level.
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
I gave it 3 seconds, selected the main story and read the most highly rated comments.
One was that 'Mr Sunak' is dishonest and out of touch, the next was that if Liz wins she will be beat by Starmer and Rishi performs better in public polls, the third was that Sunak is not perfect but Truss is a big fake and if she wins the person might vote Labour instead, and the fourth was supporting Truss rather than 'ccp Rishi Sunak', though I cannot figure out what ccp is meant to mean in this context.
So surprisingly balanced from that albeit unscientific foray.
You missed the comments from those that do not want "Indians in No.10"?
Do you have a link to or screenshot of those comments please?
Can think on their feet: Boris, Tone, Jezza, Dave, Jess.
Cannot think on their feet: every other politician/PM candidate of the past twenty years
Johnson is useless without a script. Jezza just didn't think.
Many senior MPs are quite quick witted in both parties. I'd agree on Jess, but several dozen others too. JRM for starters, loathed as I am to concede that.
The one who always impressed me was Mandelson.
When I speak, I'm always thinking about the last sentence as I say the next one. With Peter Mandelson, you can almost see him thinking two or three sentences ahead. He is a brilliant orator, of the calm-and-reasonable rather than firebrand type.
Hague second time around maybe? Clegg, actually. But yes - Mandelson was brilliant and in a another world would have been a decent Cabinet Minister right the way through that government.
I heard Roy Hattersley speak about Lloyd George for precisely 60 minutes without hesitation, deviation or repetition ... and without notes. It was a bravura performance.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
It's far too uncertain to even posit making a bet. But it took less than ten years to go from no manned flight to men stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
There was a worry in 2000 that we might end up with President Pro Tempore J Strom Thurmond as President if the SCOTUS didn't resolve the electoral debacle. Age - 96.
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
There was a worry in 2000 that we might end up with President Pro Tempore J Strom Thurmond as President if the SCOTUS didn't resolve the electoral debacle. Age - 96.
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
There was a worry in 2000 that we might end up with President Pro Tempore J Strom Thurmond as President if the SCOTUS didn't resolve the electoral debacle. Age - 96.
My word,
Sorry for the ignorance, but could you explain the circumstances behind this? I'm aware of the whole Florida nonsense, but how Thurmond would end up as President?
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Why should I care if Labour keep losing? Or the Lib Dems?
I stopped voting after 2017
(And teh comments on ConHome are still there and it is hardly likely to be Labour or LDs posting in ConHome)
Con home is not the Conservative party, any more than twitter is the people of Britain.
"ConHome is not the Conservative Party". Technically true, but I must have got confused by the name.
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Why should I care if Labour keep losing? Or the Lib Dems?
I stopped voting after 2017
(And teh comments on ConHome are still there and it is hardly likely to be Labour or LDs posting in ConHome)
Con home is not the Conservative party, any more than twitter is the people of Britain.
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Why should I care if Labour keep losing? Or the Lib Dems?
I stopped voting after 2017
(And teh comments on ConHome are still there and it is hardly likely to be Labour or LDs posting in ConHome)
Con home is not the Conservative party, any more than twitter is the people of Britain.
"ConHome is not the Conservative Party". Technically true, but I must have got confused by the name.
The point being the Conservative party is generally held to be rather old in make up, and internet chats rather younger in general, although quite a few older members on here.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions e.g. I was watching something today about why England keep picking 3 left arm seamers for T20 / ODIs, it isn't because they think they are the best seamers in the country.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
What about Musk? If he walks on Mars is the bet void or lost?
He'd have to slim up a bit, looking at the latest pictures of him on holiday. Starship is only designed for 100 tonnes...
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Thing is, Britain's First wanted Kemi. Not because she is a proud black woman, because they thought she would harass women and blacks and gayers and non-fascists. Suspect many Tory members have similar if slightly less extreme perspectives.
Tories like one of us. Sunak is not one of us. So he will get demolished.
Define “demolished”. Even if he loses he’ll score respectably with the members.
Define “Tories”. Since he just won the MPs and is the favourite of Tory voters if I remember right.
David Cameron was called a LD even as he was Conservative Prime Minister - nothing saves people from not being true Tories.
I don't remember that he was called a LD by any LDs.
That might depend on how you interpret the acronym…
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions e.g. I was watching something today about why England keep picking 3 left arm seamers.
It's like F1 - they're no longer a sport, but businesses masquerading as a sport. In F1, drivers are mostly told what the strategy is from the pit wall, and they are told by a team of analysts back at base, fed with millions of datapoints live throughout the race.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
It's far too uncertain to even posit making a bet. But it took less than ten years to go from no manned flight to men stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
It's about elfin safety innit. The rocketry may be up and running, getting people there in good health, indeed not dead on arrival, is problematic
Joe Biden is only 18 months into his presidency and his mental decline is actually sad to see, the scary part is he wants to run again and still be there in 6 and a half years time....
There was a worry in 2000 that we might end up with President Pro Tempore J Strom Thurmond as President if the SCOTUS didn't resolve the electoral debacle. Age - 96.
My word,
Sorry for the ignorance, but could you explain the circumstances behind this? I'm aware of the whole Florida nonsense, but how Thurmond would end up as President?
If there was no President and no Vice President elected by Inauguration Day, the next in line becomes acting President. That's first Speaker of the House and then President Pro Tempore of the Senate. But - to become acting President, you have to resign the office you hold.
There was a concern the Speaker would not resign a post he might not get back, and in the absence of any alternative Thurmond would have to be the figurehead to ensure continuity of government.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Yes, Sky has worked this out for the cricket. Despite being a bit nervous, Saqib Mahmood was very interesting when they had him on for T20. They also had likes of Wood and Morgan on.
I have heard Sam Billings talk about modern T20 cricket and its fascinating stuff. I believe Sky often have one of the Cricviz guys with them off camera giving them analysis.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
They’ll be on the M25 tomorrow raising an awareness of an issue that almost everyone inside well aware of.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Yes, Sky has worked this out for the cricket. Despite being a bit nervous, Saqib Mahmood was very interesting when they had him on for T20.
Yes, putting Gower, Botham and co out to pasture was a good decision.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions e.g. I was watching something today about why England keep picking 3 left arm seamers for T20 / ODIs, it isn't because they think they are the best seamers in the country.
You have explained this before. Thing is the science of footy might have moved on but the fans largely haven't.
No point blinding people with the stats and probability functions if people only want to hear about the overlap and the fox in the box.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
What about Musk? If he walks on Mars is the bet void or lost?
He'd have to slim up a bit, looking at the latest pictures of him on holiday. Starship is only designed for 100 tonnes...
Although his albedo is significant...
While I have no dispute with your interpretation of Mr Musk's figure, I think you misunderstood the significance of my remarks on voiding the bet,..
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Given Musk's recent travails, he's more likely to get sued for pulling out of paying for the Mars base, or something.
Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
Musk really messes with people's pattern matching because he's a massive bullshiter, but also he sometimes delivers. I feel like PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX are too many actual deliveries to just be lucky timing etc.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions e.g. I was watching something today about why England keep picking 3 left arm seamers for T20 / ODIs, it isn't because they think they are the best seamers in the country.
You have explained this before. Thing is the science of footy might have moved on but the fans largely haven't.
No point blinding people with the stats and probability functions if people only want to hear about the overlap and the fox in the box.
Sky have managed this with the cricket. As for fans not understanding, they gave a Royal Institute Christmas lecture to kids on this 2 years ago. 11 year old kids got it.
Also I am not suggesting full on Tifo football 15 min segments on why Haaland is best striker in the world complete with chart after chart breaking down every touch he has made for past 5 years...rather it has to evolve from "whack it wide, get it in the box, shooooooooooot".
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Yes, Sky has worked this out for the cricket. Despite being a bit nervous, Saqib Mahmood was very interesting when they had him on for T20. They also had likes of Wood and Morgan on.
I have heard Sam Billings talk about modern T20 cricket and its fascinating stuff. I believe Sky often have one of the Cricviz guys with them off camera giving them analysis.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Yes, Sky has worked this out for the cricket. Despite being a bit nervous, Saqib Mahmood was very interesting when they had him on for T20.
Yes, putting Gower, Botham and co out to pasture was a good decision.
We expect players to have a shortish career, I don’t see why expert commentators should be different if their expertise is purely due to playing the game.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
It's far too uncertain to even posit making a bet. But it took less than ten years to go from no manned flight to men stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
It's about elfin safety innit. The rocketry may be up and running, getting people there in good health, indeed not dead on arrival, is problematic
The biggest problem in getting there before a set date are the synods. For the most efficient route to Mars, you only get one attempt every 26 months (hence why several orbiters/landers launched in 2020; the next opportunity is (from memory) around September this year).
This matters as we can launch from the Moon pretty much any time, or monthly for an Apollo-style program. But to get to Mars, we only get one opportunity every 26 months. And is a small problem causes a failure, we have to wait until the next synod to try again. That can *really* delay things.
Well, the end game of the Italian parliament looks totally unavoidable now, September election it will be. Predicting the end of an Italian government is hardly high in brownie points, but pleased to have read the mechanics well over the last year with my basic understanding.
Perhaps I need to get out of the bubble a bit and simplify my understanding of UK politics where my record is more mixed!
In terms of how Italian governments are normally counted, worth noting that the UK is soon to be on its 6th administration since June 2016 (Cameron 2, May 1/2, Johnson 1/2, Sunak or Truss 1)). Italy after GE would still edge it with 6 since December 2016 (Renzi, Gentiloni. Conte 1/2, Draghi, ?Meloni?)
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
I have a young lady that does that for me every couple of weeks.
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year. Put my mind at rest.
I have a young lady that does that for me every couple of weeks.
You can never be too careful.
Every six months if no clinical suspicion would be frequent enough. I think you must have an ulterior motive...
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
He can try everything he wants.
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
RIshi is an Indian. His wife is an Indian. Go over to ConHome and it will take you about 3 seconds to find out why Rishi will not win...
Comments like the above are why Labour keep losing.
The tory members did not want Rishi, Liz or Penny, actually.
They wanted Kemi.
The polls show that Kemi would have beaten any of the others with the members. By a street. Meanwhile, the most upvoted posts on conhome were Kemi for PM.
Labour? stale pale middle class white male.
Lib Dem? Stale pale middle class white male.
Thing is, Britain's First wanted Kemi. Not because she is a proud black woman, because they thought she would harass women and blacks and gayers and non-fascists. Suspect many Tory members have similar if slightly less extreme perspectives.
Tories like one of us. Sunak is not one of us. So he will get demolished.
Define “demolished”. Even if he loses he’ll score respectably with the members.
Define “Tories”. Since he just won the MPs and is the favourite of Tory voters if I remember right.
David Cameron was called a LD even as he was Conservative Prime Minister - nothing saves people from not being true Tories.
I don't remember that he was called a LD by any LDs.
This was by Tories.
Now Ken Clarke, he was called a LD by at least one LD publicly (albeit as a joke).
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
I have a young lady that does that for me every couple of weeks.
You can never be too careful.
@SeanT really is playing with fire here, hacking a mod's account like that.
Well, the end game of the Italian parliament looks totally unavoidable now, September election it will be. Predicting the end of an Italian government is hardly high in brownie points, but pleased to have read the mechanics well over the last year with my basic understanding.
Perhaps I need to get out of the bubble a bit and simplify my understanding of UK politics where my record is more mixed!
In terms of how Italian governments are normally counted, worth noting that the UK is soon to be on its 6th administration since June 2016 (Cameron 2, May 1/2, Johnson 1/2, Sunak or Truss 1)). Italy after GE would still edge it with 6 since December 2016 (Renzi, Gentiloni. Conte 1/2, Draghi, ?Meloni?)
And currently leading the polls is the hard right Brothers of Italy's Giorgia Meloni who makes Liz Truss look wet
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
It's far too uncertain to even posit making a bet. But it took less than ten years to go from no manned flight to men stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
There’s a lot more than zero doubt. I’ve little doubt landing a human on Mars would be possible quite soon, but doing so safely is quite another matter. For example, how many of these risks have fully been addressed ? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-020-00124-6
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Given Musk's recent travails, he's more likely to get sued for pulling out of paying for the Mars base, or something.
Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
Musk really messes with people's pattern matching because he's a massive bullshiter, but also he sometimes delivers. I feel like PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX are too many actual deliveries to just be lucky timing etc.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Paypal: nah. It was one of many companies, and he did not actually found it: Musk's company (Cofinity or something) was bought out by Thiel's crew. He made a few millions from it. They then chucked him out, and sold it to Ebay for billions. (From memory.)
Tesla is a true achievement. If only he did not b/s the autopilot feature. But would it have been successful without the electric car credits in the US?
SpaceX is a massive achievement but he was also very lucky with timing. If it had not been for the cargo services contracts, they'd be lucky to be at the base Falcon 9 stage by now.
Musk is like Branson: a bullshitter for whom image and branding matters more than substance. Which is why they apparently get on so well.
But I say again; SpaceX is a massive achievement. I won't take that away from him.
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
As Morrissey (Steven, not Joy) had it, ‘Most people’s brains are between their legs’.
Dickhead protestors at the footy. Well done BBC (or tv provider for the match) for not showing it. This is the way to deal with it, boo them and don't show it, so they don't get any exposure and they will stop.
Not enough men on the commentary team for them?
Too many covering this game for my liking. Ian Wright needs putting out to pasture, he is absolutely clueless / unable to explain anything about modern football. If the BBC want their token bloke for the women's coverage at least put on jermaine jenas or better still get somebody from the Athletic / Tifo football.
Nedum Onouha is one of the best of the crop of recent footballers who talks sense on R5.
Part of the problem is the game has under gone a total revolution in the past 10 years. If you aren't involved now (or very least weren't involved in that recently) or some very sad geeky type who spends far too many hours working at somebody like a StatsBomb or StarLizard, its a different game.
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions.
What’s interesting is the continued use of big ticket ex pros as analysts. You wonder when a major broadcaster might start picking up the analyst role for actually broadcasting to the public. Some of the most interesting stuff from cricket has come from current players. You don’t get that from footballers.
Yes, Sky has worked this out for the cricket. Despite being a bit nervous, Saqib Mahmood was very interesting when they had him on for T20. They also had likes of Wood and Morgan on.
I have heard Sam Billings talk about modern T20 cricket and its fascinating stuff. I believe Sky often have one of the Cricviz guys with them off camera giving them analysis.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Happy to bet £250 evens no human to walk on Mars by 20 July 2042
It's far too uncertain to even posit making a bet. But it took less than ten years to go from no manned flight to men stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
There’s a lot more than zero doubt. I’ve little doubt landing a human on Mars would be possible quite soon, but doing so safely is quite another matter. For example, how many of these risks have fully been addressed ? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-020-00124-6
I've made similar points many times in the past, including on the various SpaceX subreddits. Mankind has only spent a few weeks total outside the van Allen belts during the Apollo missions. Musk is talking about months and years. Then there are the problems with consumables such as air and water: even with recycling, the ISS requires regular reprovisioning with water (the O2 is split from the water).
Fans say that Starship is so big you'll be able to carry enough consumables. Whilst that may be true, it is still mass that needs lifting to orbit and launching to Mars, and mass that could be used for something else. Then there's the problem with micrometeroids: the JWST has already been hit by one.
But given enough money and redundancy, we could get around them. The more mass we can send, the easier most problems become to solve.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Given Musk's recent travails, he's more likely to get sued for pulling out of paying for the Mars base, or something.
Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
Musk really messes with people's pattern matching because he's a massive bullshiter, but also he sometimes delivers. I feel like PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX are too many actual deliveries to just be lucky timing etc.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Yes, it's the Steve Job Reality Distortion Field effect.
Unluckily for Musk he's jist tried it with the Delaware courts and they've ruled that we will be having the Twitter court case in actual reality not the Musk constructed version.
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
My GP had a rather long index finger.
Actually still has. He did not leave it in situ.
I thought he'd retired - good to hear he still keeps his hand in.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Given Musk's recent travails, he's more likely to get sued for pulling out of paying for the Mars base, or something.
Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
Musk really messes with people's pattern matching because he's a massive bullshiter, but also he sometimes delivers. I feel like PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX are too many actual deliveries to just be lucky timing etc.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Paypal: nah. It was one of many companies, and he did not actually found it: Musk's company (Cofinity or something) was bought out by Thiel's crew. He made a few millions from it. They then chucked him out, and sold it to Ebay for billions. (From memory.)
Tesla is a true achievement. If only he did not b/s the autopilot feature. But would it have been successful without the electric car credits in the US?
SpaceX is a massive achievement but he was also very lucky with timing. If it had not been for the cargo services contracts, they'd be lucky to be at the base Falcon 9 stage by now.
Musk is like Branson: a bullshitter for whom image and branding matters more than substance. Which is why they apparently get on so well.
But I say again; SpaceX is a massive achievement. I won't take that away from him.
That first Falcon 9 Heavy launch. Where the two boosters make double precision landings. Mindblowing leap forward.
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
My GP had a rather long index finger.
Actually still has. He did not leave it in situ.
I thought he'd retired - good to hear he still keeps his hand in.
I couldn’t accommodate a whole hand. A finger sufficed.
Spain rejects EU proposal to cut gas consumption by 15% with a jibe that was overused by Merkel officials during the eurozone crisis: "Unlike other countries, we Spaniards have not lived beyond our means from an energy point of view"
Unvaccinated Novak Djokovic will NOT play the US Open after tournament confirmed it will follow US government advice and not admit citizens who have not had their shot
Doesn't some incredibly high percentage of older men have prostate cancer? And if caught early is one of those things that managed such grim gets you from lots of other things first.
Apparently Biden has had skin cancer in the past....is he getting confused again?
All men should have their prostates checked regularly. I did earlier in the year.
Put my mind at rest.
If it reached your mind, it must have been extremely thorough.
Spain rejects EU proposal to cut gas consumption by 15% with a jibe that was overused by Merkel officials during the eurozone crisis: "Unlike other countries, we Spaniards have not lived beyond our means from an energy point of view"
Sunak is going to lose and a whole section of the commentariat will be completely bemused despite him consistently polling miles behind everyone else in the leadership contents
Keeper too far to her left... and too small. Women’s hurdles and high hurdles are shorter than men’s, and the 110 hurdles is 100 for women. Should the goals be a bit smaller?
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
I think you will find Poland, UK, US and others are doing what Ukraine want.
Saxony or other Putin-apologists like you seeking to "end the war" even if its "bitter for Ukraine" can go to hell.
I can't see any way that there would be to establish what Ukrainians want.
And I find your sympathy for the plight of the Ukrainians (so long as they continue to be the foot soldiers in a proxy war with Russia on their turf) to be more than a little synthetic.
Like Iraq, there seems to be no end game here. If we want to repel Russia back to it's starting point (or beyond), what will that require, and can we do it? And when can we do it by? The current plan seems to be to engage in a permanent conflict whilst Ukraine (and the world economy) burns. That's not acceptable.
There is a way to establish what Ukrainians want, what the Ukrainian people and elected Ukrainian government want.
You seem to want to just stuff over the Ukrainians and give everything to Russia, that's not acceptable.
The current plan is not to engage in a permanent conflict, it is to defeat Russia and have Ukraine win the conflict. What makes that so hard for you to comprehend? Is it your beloved Putin losing that you find unacceptable, or the idea that we and the USA are backing the side who should win that you hate?
Well if she couldn't even win the Telegraph who could she win? Though the fact the author was chairman of Northern Rock before it went bust in the crash might not be the best encouragement to Tories of prospects under her leadership!
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with some other women's sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Sunak is going to lose and a whole section of the commentariat will be completely bemused despite him consistently polling miles behind everyone else in the leadership contents
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with other sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Every play in a full sized goal as a child/teenager? It's a miserable experience I can tell you, most unfair.
53 years ago today, mankind first walked on the Moon.
It will not be 10 years before the next man or woman walks on the moon. And it will not be 20 years before someone takes a first step on Mars.
Agreed. It will be more like 30 and 50.
Mars is very uncertain, even if Loony Musk said in 2018 that there would be a base on Mars by 2028 (hint: he's wrong.) But if he can maintain funding and not have to waste all his money buying Twitter for way over its value, then 20 years, or 9 synods, would be doable. In fact, I reckon 9 years of 4 synods may be possible. The people may not get back, though ...
As for the Moon: the US's Artemis program is due to land humans back on the Moon in 2025. If they fail, China is considering one by 2027; if not, the early 2030s.
Given Musk's recent travails, he's more likely to get sued for pulling out of paying for the Mars base, or something.
Over ten years I've gone from a position of really admiring Musk (albeit whilst knowing he could be slightly dickish) to a position of thinking he is an utter twat whose success is mostly dependent on lucky timing, relentless self-PR and hordes of brainless fans.
I like his ambition for getting to Mars, and wanting transport to go electric. I dislike the way he goes about it, and the shitty things he does.
Musk really messes with people's pattern matching because he's a massive bullshiter, but also he sometimes delivers. I feel like PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX are too many actual deliveries to just be lucky timing etc.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Paypal: nah. It was one of many companies, and he did not actually found it: Musk's company (Cofinity or something) was bought out by Thiel's crew. He made a few millions from it. They then chucked him out, and sold it to Ebay for billions. (From memory.)
Tesla is a true achievement. If only he did not b/s the autopilot feature. But would it have been successful without the electric car credits in the US?
SpaceX is a massive achievement but he was also very lucky with timing. If it had not been for the cargo services contracts, they'd be lucky to be at the base Falcon 9 stage by now.
Musk is like Branson: a bullshitter for whom image and branding matters more than substance. Which is why they apparently get on so well.
But I say again; SpaceX is a massive achievement. I won't take that away from him.
The other thing he actually does, is doing stuff.
When I worked in the oil business, the company I was with had a huge green sub-company. Massively expanding, solar cells, hydrogen, the works. Was it green washing? Well, the scale of the investment - billions - was serious. Even in downturns, management kept pouring money in.
One thing they kept asking was for the companies claiming they were building a fuel cell car, to actually deliver some so they could test full cycle - pumps, driving, maintenance etc. It was always a case of "well we have these concepts, but the government subsidies haven't come through to actually build some. So no."
Years and years of that....
So when Tesla actually built some concept cars (the roadsters were really that) - people sat up. Then they started mass producing cars. And then building huge factories etc etc.
With supercharging, everyone else waited for the government fund a charging network. Tesla just went and built one.
Musk isn't like Branson - Branson is generally selling some crap he really doesn't understand. The interview where Branson claimed that ITAR meant he knew nothing about how SpaceShip Two worked is.. just embarrassing. Compare that to Musk actually knowing what ISP is.
It's worth noting that if the US gets back to the Moon, it's because they are buying the lander from SpaceX. Yes, they spent the whole budget on SLS and Orion. The actual lander is going to be (essentially) SpaceX's Starship.
Sunak is going to lose and a whole section of the commentariat will be completely bemused despite him consistently polling miles behind everyone else in the leadership contents
The irony being Sunak was the hardcore Brexiter Thatcherite. Whilst Truss was the Remainer Lib Dem. We have always been at War with Eastasia.
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with other sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Every play in a full sized goal as a child/teenager? It's a miserable experience I can tell you, most unfair.
Even as an adult it can be :-)
If you ever get the chance to watch EPL goalkeepers train it is quite something how hard it is to beat them from range if they are set. Its got to be hard / swerving and normally right in top corner. Edge of the box a rando isn't getting many if any past them.
Sunak is going to lose and a whole section of the commentariat will be completely bemused despite him consistently polling miles behind everyone else in the leadership contents
The irony being Sunak was the hardcore Brexiter Thatcherite. Whilst Truss was the Remainer Lib Dem. We have always been at War with Eastasia.
People evolve, those who don't are rather creepy and untrustworthy - like Corbyn still being stuck with the same views he had in the 1970s.
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with other sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Every play in a full sized goal as a child/teenager? It's a miserable experience I can tell you, most unfair.
My niece is about to go to the US on a scholarship. She plays as a goal keeper for the Hearts youth team and has been on the periphery of the Scotland squad, again at youth level. She is very fit but only about 5ft 6. When you see her in the goal it looks huge.
Sunak is going to lose and a whole section of the commentariat will be completely bemused despite him consistently polling miles behind everyone else in the leadership contents
The irony being Sunak was the hardcore Brexiter Thatcherite. Whilst Truss was the Remainer Lib Dem. We have always been at War with Eastasia.
People evolve, those who don't are rather creepy and untrustworthy - like Corbyn still being stuck with the same views he had in the 1970s.
Well. Indeed they do. However the Tories appear to be searching for the one most resembling their leader in the Seventies. Both in appearance and ideas.
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with other sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Every play in a full sized goal as a child/teenager? It's a miserable experience I can tell you, most unfair.
My niece is about to go to the US on a scholarship. She plays as a goal keeper for the Hearts youth team and has been on the periphery of the Scotland squad, again at youth level. She is very fit but only about 5ft 6. When you see her in the goal it looks huge.
Average WSL salary is £30k a year. If you are a fit, athletic, coordinated teenage girl standing 6ft, there are a host of sports where your height will be a huge advantage and which you earn a lot more than £30k a year.
The average male goalie in pro football is well over 6ft in order to fill the goal.
Well that is a weakness in women's football. Many of the goalies aren't that large.
I presume as with other sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
Every play in a full sized goal as a child/teenager? It's a miserable experience I can tell you, most unfair.
My niece is about to go to the US on a scholarship. She plays as a goal keeper for the Hearts youth team and has been on the periphery of the Scotland squad, again at youth level. She is very fit but only about 5ft 6. When you see her in the goal it looks huge.
That's pretty short. However. Jordan Pickford is 6 1. It isn't all about height. Though it helps.
Comments
Quite a mix of viewing.
*Plenty of movie, news channels and ESPN.
stepping on the Moon, from a much smaller tech base and experience level (albeit the Apollo program had been underway in NASA/NACA for a couple of years before that).
I have zero doubt that humans could land safely on Mars in ten years. Technically, it can be done. It therefore becomes a matter of cost, and therefore politics. Unless someone like Musk can throw money at it (latest figures say his Mars rocket has cost $10 billion already), then it becomes a political question.
And that's where the uncertainty comes in. Will an individual such as Musk, or a country like China or the USA, see the prestige of being first on Mars being worth the cost?
We could easily get people on Mars (and back) by 2042. What's stopping us is the finance - and Musk is trying to short-circuit that issue.
*Pedantry alert*
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/144643392428
Sorry for the ignorance, but could you explain the circumstances behind this? I'm aware of the whole Florida nonsense, but how Thurmond would end up as President?
You listen to even an overview of say Man City tactics and your head starts to hurt and that is only the high level summation. Then out come the mathematical models, heat maps, etc etc etc...it ain't well "whack it wide, get it in the box faster" type analysis that is basically Ian Wright's summation.
Same with the cricket. Brain explosion stuff trying to listen to what the thinking is behind the decisions e.g. I was watching something today about why England keep picking 3 left arm seamers for T20 / ODIs, it isn't because they think they are the best seamers in the country.
Although his albedo is significant...
All sports with money will go that way.
There was a concern the Speaker would not resign a post he might not get back, and in the absence of any alternative Thurmond would have to be the figurehead to ensure continuity of government.
I have heard Sam Billings talk about modern T20 cricket and its fascinating stuff. I believe Sky often have one of the Cricviz guys with them off camera giving them analysis.
*only watched it a few months ago when I got my Britbox subscription.
No point blinding people with the stats and probability functions if people only want to hear about the overlap and the fox in the box.
She married a LibDem ... and even campaigned for them.
Also the hordes of brainless fans are part of the recipe, because he can make things that are seriously inferior in important ways to the existing thing, and they'll still buy them and shill them. This is an ability Steve Jobs also had: If you can make people accept something very shitty on one axis, you can make something that's better on another axis than any of your competitors.
Also I am not suggesting full on Tifo football 15 min segments on why Haaland is best striker in the world complete with chart after chart breaking down every touch he has made for past 5 years...rather it has to evolve from "whack it wide, get it in the box, shooooooooooot".
https://youtu.be/_omGCTnqllg
This matters as we can launch from the Moon pretty much any time, or monthly for an Apollo-style program. But to get to Mars, we only get one opportunity every 26 months. And is a small problem causes a failure, we have to wait until the next synod to try again. That can *really* delay things.
Perhaps I need to get out of the bubble a bit and simplify my understanding of UK politics where my record is more mixed!
In terms of how Italian governments are normally counted, worth noting that the UK is soon to be on its 6th administration since June 2016 (Cameron 2, May 1/2, Johnson 1/2, Sunak or Truss 1)). Italy after GE would still edge it with 6 since December 2016 (Renzi, Gentiloni. Conte 1/2, Draghi, ?Meloni?)
You can never be too careful.
Now Ken Clarke, he was called a LD by at least one LD publicly (albeit as a joke).
I’ve little doubt landing a human on Mars would be possible quite soon, but doing so safely is quite another matter.
For example, how many of these risks have fully been addressed ?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-020-00124-6
Tesla is a true achievement. If only he did not b/s the autopilot feature. But would it have been successful without the electric car credits in the US?
SpaceX is a massive achievement but he was also very lucky with timing. If it had not been for the cargo services contracts, they'd be lucky to be at the base Falcon 9 stage by now.
Musk is like Branson: a bullshitter for whom image and branding matters more than substance. Which is why they apparently get on so well.
But I say again; SpaceX is a massive achievement. I won't take that away from him.
Fans say that Starship is so big you'll be able to carry enough consumables. Whilst that may be true, it is still mass that needs lifting to orbit and launching to Mars, and mass that could be used for something else. Then there's the problem with micrometeroids: the JWST has already been hit by one.
But given enough money and redundancy, we could get around them. The more mass we can send, the easier most problems become to solve.
Unluckily for Musk he's jist tried it with the Delaware courts and they've ruled that we will be having the Twitter court case in actual reality not the Musk constructed version.
Actually still has. He did not leave it in situ.
They sort of a few bob?
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1549832231690043393
I lost my wedding ring...
...inside another woman.
Excellent.
Pass the sick bucket.
"She is the ultimate Brexiteers’ Remainer – the Brexiteers’ St Paul."
The case for Liz Truss: She is a true Brexit convert
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-case-for-liz-truss
@JohnRentoul
·
29m
The Times declares for Rishi Sunak
Does anyone know why? Can't see any new poll.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/20/liz-truss-unconventional-tory-radical-britain-needs/
Brexit LIVE: Truss masterplan passes through Commons as UK nears 'taking back control
OH wait, he managed a 3 point lead over Braverman as well. I'll give him that.
You seem to want to just stuff over the Ukrainians and give everything to Russia, that's not acceptable.
The current plan is not to engage in a permanent conflict, it is to defeat Russia and have Ukraine win the conflict. What makes that so hard for you to comprehend? Is it your beloved Putin losing that you find unacceptable, or the idea that we and the USA are backing the side who should win that you hate?
I presume as with some other women's sports, if you are a women who is far far taller than the average there are lots of other sports where this advantage can be utilised and which pay more money.
I do sometimes wonder whether it is the ultimate sleeper trolling.
When I worked in the oil business, the company I was with had a huge green sub-company. Massively expanding, solar cells, hydrogen, the works. Was it green washing? Well, the scale of the investment - billions - was serious. Even in downturns, management kept pouring money in.
One thing they kept asking was for the companies claiming they were building a fuel cell car, to actually deliver some so they could test full cycle - pumps, driving, maintenance etc. It was always a case of "well we have these concepts, but the government subsidies haven't come through to actually build some. So no."
Years and years of that....
So when Tesla actually built some concept cars (the roadsters were really that) - people sat up. Then they started mass producing cars. And then building huge factories etc etc.
With supercharging, everyone else waited for the government fund a charging network. Tesla just went and built one.
Musk isn't like Branson - Branson is generally selling some crap he really doesn't understand. The interview where Branson claimed that ITAR meant he knew nothing about how SpaceShip Two worked is.. just embarrassing. Compare that to Musk actually knowing what ISP is.
It's worth noting that if the US gets back to the Moon, it's because they are buying the lander from SpaceX. Yes, they spent the whole budget on SLS and Orion. The actual lander is going to be (essentially) SpaceX's Starship.
Whilst Truss was the Remainer Lib Dem.
We have always been at War with Eastasia.
If you ever get the chance to watch EPL goalkeepers train it is quite something how hard it is to beat them from range if they are set. Its got to be hard / swerving and normally right in top corner. Edge of the box a rando isn't getting many if any past them.
However the Tories appear to be searching for the one most resembling their leader in the Seventies.
Both in appearance and ideas.
The average male goalie in pro football is well over 6ft in order to fill the goal.
However. Jordan Pickford is 6 1. It isn't all about height. Though it helps.