Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starmer has better than a 56% chance of being PM after the next election – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    Still think that we should kill off a couple of billion, just to be on the safe side. The Chinese tried but barely made a dent.
  • algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    I suspect that we're not even close to the limit, and when we get anywhere near it, there will be other planets.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 54
    And I suspect that we will, as a glut species, soon be subject to a real pandemic.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,743

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I agree. It would be great if either Truss thought about more than tactics, and greater still if cynical tactics fail. I'm still not holding my breath.

  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    Quite the story in Russia yesterday

    @Euan_MacDonald
    Russian media say 65-year-old Elena Belova, who set fire to a Russian military official's car in Moscow, was kidnapped by Ukrainian special forces, hypnotized and taught by them how to burn cars.

    An absurd fairy tale to mask public opposition to the Kremlin's war on Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1563886850984509442

    Elena Belova is a very brave lady, perhaps even a Hero. I do hope she is ok, sadly I think she is in for some very rough treatment
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Ukraine has ‘good chance’ to retake territory, U.S. assesses
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/29/u-s-ukraine-retake-territory-russia-00054092
  • Meanwhile in falling apart Britain, school chiefs are now staring into their own budget abyss. Ken baker and Justine Greening both demanding Trusster does something to help schools instead of just pandering to "grammar school was nice when I attended in the 1930s" members.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/aug/29/its-heartbreaking-englands-school-leaders-on-budget-shortfalls
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
    Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,219


    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time

    I agree - one interview makes no odds.

    I suspect as soon as she is proclaimed/announced Prime Minister, the "selling" of Liz Truss will begin in earnest with the pro-Conservative media falling over themselves to present insubstantial stories of what she was like at school, her family, her favourite food and where she buys her clothes.

    The presentational/image/marketing process will be considered more important than any policy announcements. Presumably she has an idea of the immediate Cabinet and will form that within 24 hours of returning from the Palace and from then on it will be a blizzard of announcements, pledges and promises.

    The idea is the poor old electorate will believe we have a "new" Government and a "new" Prime Minister much as the lines old when Johnson took over - I suspect it will be a much harder sell this time.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine has ‘good chance’ to retake territory, U.S. assesses
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/29/u-s-ukraine-retake-territory-russia-00054092

    I both hope and think they are right. but also what else could they say, 'its pointless give up now' ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    BigRich said:

    According to a Russian source:

    @yarotrof
    The most prominent collaborator assassinated since the Russian invasion : Aleksey Kovalyov, a Ukrainian lawmaker from Zelensky’s party who switched sides to become deputy head of the Russian administration in Kherson, overseeing grain theft, has been gunned down in his home.


    https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1564261285243432960

    Not sad to here that, but I don't know exactly how legal theses assassinations are.
    That's a really interesting question. I doubt many people would argue that Reinhard Heydrich was not worthy of assassination (leaving aside Germany's hideous reprisals), but are quislings making themselves parties to the war, and therefore combatants? That's a really thorny issue IMO, especially when the definition of 'quisling' is expanded.
    There’s some not very useful discussion here:
    https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

    And some more, here:
    http://opiniojuris.org/2015/11/09/guest-post-is-the-execution-of-collaborators-a-war-crime-under-the-rome-statute-part-i/

    This is also relevant:
    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule6

    None of this is really of use in considering the current situation, though.
    The Russian invasion is illegal; as occupiers, they have not followed the international laws (such as they are) covering the conduct of occupying armies.
    And I think there are very few, if any cases of members if resistances being prosecuted after their countries have been liberated.
    Should the Russians capture them in the meantime, it is almost certain that the conventions regarding the trial and punishment of civilian resistors will not be followed.

    Nobody mourns the wicked.

    It's an example of "In War, all laws are silent."
  • RattersRatters Posts: 483
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
    Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
    Robots would have cold, tinny, hands.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
    Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
    Thanks goodness that AI pictures are banned now.
  • stodge said:


    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time

    I agree - one interview makes no odds.

    I suspect as soon as she is proclaimed/announced Prime Minister, the "selling" of Liz Truss will begin in earnest with the pro-Conservative media falling over themselves to present insubstantial stories of what she was like at school, her family, her favourite food and where she buys her clothes.

    The presentational/image/marketing process will be considered more important than any policy announcements. Presumably she has an idea of the immediate Cabinet and will form that within 24 hours of returning from the Palace and from then on it will be a blizzard of announcements, pledges and promises.

    The idea is the poor old electorate will believe we have a "new" Government and a "new" Prime Minister much as the lines old when Johnson took over - I suspect it will be a much harder sell this time.
    Most probably
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822

    dixiedean said:
    Not for the posh kids though so who cares eh?
    Zero day week for the poshos and the schools will make sure they still get the grades.
  • I was always told you to write off a lawyer.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine has ‘good chance’ to retake territory, U.S. assesses
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/29/u-s-ukraine-retake-territory-russia-00054092

    The Russian position in and around Kherson seems very precarious to me.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,345
    edited August 2022
    The news from Pakistan is catastrophic

    One third of the country under water
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,171
    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
    It's surely a steady state end point you have to reach at some point though, unless we're planning exponential colonisation of the entire galaxy.
  • So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,624

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,219

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Ross Barkley, 33 caps is a free agent after being released by Chelsea.
    28 years old.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine has ‘good chance’ to retake territory, U.S. assesses
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/29/u-s-ukraine-retake-territory-russia-00054092

    The Russian position in and around Kherson seems very precarious to me.
    Agreed but it is a logistical squeeze using geography. It is not enough to attack on a day or so. They now need to exhaust Russian supplies and morale be keeping this attack up for long enough to achieve both. That is going to cost them a lot of men but the potential rewards are huge.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Lord Turner addresses the issue of population and birth rates here. In short, below the replacement rate is okay but you need to raise the retirement age. Once you get below 1.6/1.5 you have a real problem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsbT02Y-Yzg
  • dixiedean said:

    Ross Barkley, 33 caps is a free agent after being released by Chelsea.
    28 years old.

    Will Chippytits Anderson put in a complaint to the police again?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
  • stodge said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
    Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
  • pingping Posts: 3,282
    Very off topic.

    I’m thinking of taking a punt on @rcs1000 ‘s French LNG membrane supplier share tip.

    I need a broker who isn’t going to rinse me on Forex/commissions.

    “Interactive Brokers” seem to be the best bet.

    They’re offering a $200 referral bonus. I know it’s a long shot, but does anyone on here have an account with them?

    Ta.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high
    standards of living.
    Caves if steel was a great book, arguably Asimovs best but it’s not a world I would like to live in.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    C'mon, she's undergone ordeal by fire on GB News, that should be good enough for anyone.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,219

    stodge said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
    Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
    Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.

    The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.

    Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
  • Lord Turner addresses the issue of population and birth rates here. In short, below the replacement rate is okay but you need to raise the retirement age. Once you get below 1.6/1.5 you have a real problem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsbT02Y-Yzg

    Well, South Korea will be the test.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62670717
    Rate is 0.81.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,822
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
    All eating artificial food grown in vats, no doubt. I'm not sure I'd want to live on that earth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    Eh?

    We are only at the very beginning of transitioning to renewable energy. Prices for wind and solar have collapsed 75% in two decades for wind, and 95% for solar. And they will keep falling.

    Battery technology is continuing to improve, so the world's land transport needs - inside our own lifetimes - are going to go from burning oil, to entirely renewable electric.

    There's similar - extraordinarily - progress in other areas. I know companies working on tuning LEDs so that they can only emit light in the frequency that is used by crops for photosynthesis. The energy savings from this are immense.

    More people than ever before live lives unimaginable to our predecessors. Clean water has gone from luxury to being available to four or five billion people, all in a short period of time.

    We've close the hole in the ozone layer. In most modern economies, rivers are becoming cleaner than ever.

    I know doomsaying is fashionable. But be on the side of the optimists. Humanity has made extraordinary steps in the last three decades, and will continue to do so. Yes, there'll be difficulties along the way. But - all in all - things are getting better.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    edited August 2022
    ping said:

    Very off topic.

    I’m thinking of taking a punt on @rcs1000 ‘s French LNG membrane supplier share tip.

    I need a broker who isn’t going to rinse me on Forex/commissions.

    “Interactive Brokers” seem to be the best bet.

    They’re offering a $200 referral bonus. I know it’s a long shot, but does anyone on here have an account with them?

    Ta.

    I do :smile:

    BUT FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, I WAS NOT RECOMMENDING PURCHASING SHARES IN ANYTHING, MERELY RELAYING SOMETHING I HAD DONE MYSELF
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    I'm looking forward to seeing the dally update form the Ukrainians of how many Russians and how much equipment they have taken out.

    Might be very inaccurate but will give us and indication of how big this counteroffensive is.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 877
    edited August 2022
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high
    standards of living.
    Caves if steel was a great book, arguably Asimovs best but it’s not a world I would like to live in.
    It's been a real puzzle to me why that's never been turned into a film/netflix-show. Has a decent mix of police procedural, sci-fi and politics. There is a pretty good BBC Radio adaptation but other than that nothing that I'm aware of.
  • I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
  • nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC

    I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible

    Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising

    Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
    Really, really not true. Achievable in a Matrix scenario possibly, but. It's a wonderful time to be alive means it's a wonderful time to be a top 0.1% whitey.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    Tom Knox books are awesome, I bought them for the same reason I bought all the Twilight books.


  • So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    Maybe Ukraine can be dissuaded from joining, right?
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
    Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
    Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.

    The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.

    Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
    If we hadn't got out we would have been ratcheted further and further into closer union by just occasional europhile UK governments. There's no way backwards in that arrangement except out. Thank god we left when we did.
  • nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC

    I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible

    Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising

    Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones

    You don't follow politics do you?

    New PMs always get a boost, even Gordon Brown and Theresa May all got boosts which dissipated once the public got to know them.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 877
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    Isaac Arthur (quite optimistic futurologist) has some videos about possible future earth buried away on his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g . I'm not entirely convinced, but it's nice to hear 'we might make it'.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    It's not half as much a problem as what would happen next if people started breeding like bunnies again.

    The inversion of the demographic pyramid is a very painful phenomenon but we're going to have to live through it at some point, so we might as well get it over with rather than trying to pump more babies into the population Ponzi scheme. This will end up involving the old paying for their own upkeep, through some combination of having to give up their wealth and working until they are completely physically incapable - because they can vote for inflation busting pension increases but they can't vote to make what's left of the working age population any more productive. It's just a matter of time.
    We don't need an inversion of the population pyramid. The earth is perfectly capable of supporting 20, 25, maybe even 50 billion people with extremely high standards of living.
    Really, really not true. Achievable in a Matrix scenario possibly, but. It's a wonderful time to be alive means it's a wonderful time to be a top 0.1% whitey.
    I assumed sarcasm.
  • nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC

    I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible

    Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising

    Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones

    You don't follow politics do you?

    New PMs always get a boost, even Gordon Brown and Theresa May all got boosts which dissipated once the public got to know them.
    Of course I don't follow politics

    I know absolutely nothing about the subject and tend to post rubbish

    Is that OK
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
  • ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
  • pingping Posts: 3,282
    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    Very off topic.

    I’m thinking of taking a punt on @rcs1000 ‘s French LNG membrane supplier share tip.

    I need a broker who isn’t going to rinse me on Forex/commissions.

    “Interactive Brokers” seem to be the best bet.

    They’re offering a $200 referral bonus. I know it’s a long shot, but does anyone on here have an account with them?

    Ta.

    I do :smile:

    BUT FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, I WAS NOT RECOMMENDING PURCHASING SHARES IN ANYTHING, MERELY RELAYING SOMETHING I HAD DONE MYSELF
    Cheers.

    I’ve sent you a vanilla message.

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
    Given how shit the Russian military has been if Ruskies deployed their nukes they'd end up hitting Moscow and Leningrad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2022
    Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.

    The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda
  • nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC

    I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible

    Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising

    Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones

    It says to me that Truss' team think she has it in the bag and she just needs not to slip up in the final week
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited August 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
    Given how shit the Russian military has been if Ruskies deployed their nukes they'd end up hitting Moscow and Leningrad.
    They do time travel as well? They must be more sophisticated than they're letting on in Ukraine.

    Edit - I'm sure you've said the same thing before.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,923

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Hopefully she genuinely doesn't have time. I want her to be knee deep in paperwork, takeaway pizzas, white-boards, laptops etc. with her core team, charting a brilliant course through the mess that will surprise and delight us all.
    Your trust in her is touching, don't hold your breath....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    Quite possibly and why should she before they are announced to the HOC

    I expect her team are in very complex and detailed considerations and frankly avoiding the BBC interview seems sensible

    Truss is just 2 % behind Starmer as best PM in tonight's poll which I do find surprising

    Anyway only another couple of weeks for all to be revealed and real discussion can take place on actual measures not hypothetical ones

    It says to me that Truss' team think she has it in the bag and she just needs not to slip up in the final week
    She's had it in the bag for weeks though.
    Slipped up more than once already.
  • nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Can we get an AI to stand in as interviewee for this?

    Liz Truss has cancelled her BBC One interview with Nick Robinson which was due to air this Tuesday evening (30th August) at 7pm. Ms Truss’ team say she can no longer spare the time to appear on “Our Next Prime Minister”.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1564281776821993472

    Utterly unsurprising, but saddening as well.

    I don't like this either - though I don't watch any of this stuff, there being better things to do.

    But two points. ATM Liz Truss is trying to win an election. She has only to consider the best tactics with regard to that electorate. What would make her think that an interview with Nick Robinson will help in this?

    Secondly, and more widely, PMs and all leaders (as she aspires to be) are accountable to voters and parliament. To the voters PM Truss will issue a manifesto in due course. To parliament she will be accountable daily. Each day they can bring her reign to an end if they wish.

    The media don't want us to think this but all other media activity for leaders is public relations and advertising, not accountability.

    Tactically, fair enough. All she has to do to win now is Not Stuff Up. And this interview is an opportunity to Stuff Up, so should be avoided. Fair enough.

    But there's also the leading the nation aspect. Telling the people of the UK what she plans and why is a part of making her plans work. For better or worse, the BBC is the biggest way to do this. And she's decided not to bother.

    And if she really can't spare time to do this, that speaks volumes, in a bad way, about her time management.
    I keep returning to the same point

    Truss is foreign secretary and has not won the election yet so no doubt she considers it presumptive to act as if she has won

    For me I could not careless about a BBC interview if she is using the time with her team to put together an extensive package to address the serious issues

    We will know in the next 10 days and I doubt she will be hiding anywhere in that time
    She can’t spare 30 minutes for a BBC interview . Really I don’t believe that . She chickened out as she doesn’t want to answer questions on her plans .
    C'mon, she's undergone ordeal by fire on GB News, that should be good enough for anyone.
    GB News are more accurate than the BBC?

    PeoplePolling (on behalf of GB News!) gave Labour a 14-point lead! :lol:
  • I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII

    Churchill AND Stalin you mean.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
    I read a cheerful prediction recently that in the event of a nuclear winter, world food production would fall by 75%.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,135
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.

    The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda

    No, it would not. Starmer will oppose a second referendum under all circumstances. What’s the SNP going to do? Ally themselves (even by abstaining) to bring him down and once again become labelled the Tartan Tories? Not a chance.

    There will be a second election within months just as in 1974. What would be intriguing is if it produced another well-hung (sic) Parliament.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
    Given how shit the Russian military has been if Ruskies deployed their nukes they'd end up hitting Moscow and Leningrad.
    They do time travel as well? They must be more sophisticated than they're letting on in Ukraine.

    Edit - I'm sure you've said the same thing before.
    I'm tired, I honestly couldn't remember the current name of Leningrad.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    .
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I've come up with a solution to energy crisis.

    Invade Iran, Churchill did it during WWII, sometimes you have to do awkward things for the greater good.

    We're doing it for Ukraine, not ourselves.

    I don't think Putin would take kindly to one of his puppet states being invaded.
    It'll be fine.
    Well, it might solve the problem of lack of heating.
    We'd also make sure Iranian nuclear weapons would no longer be an issue.
    Well, yes, if the whole world is burned up by Russian ones it would have that effect.
    Given how shit the Russian military has been if Ruskies deployed their nukes they'd end up hitting Moscow and Leningrad.
    They do time travel as well? They must be more sophisticated than they're letting on in Ukraine.

    Edit - I'm sure you've said the same thing before.
    I'm tired, I honestly couldn't remember the current name of Leningrad.
    Old Soviet joke:

    Where were you born? St Petersburg.

    Where did you grow up? Petrograd.

    Where do you live now? Leningrad.

    Where do you want to live? St Petersburg.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Taiwan Says It Will Now Shoot Down Rogue Chinese Drones
    https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1564339115218579456
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Such a prophetic work. Even predicted the pivotal historic role of the Yazidi
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
    it's not

    See my posts below!

    AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take

    AI would not have invaded Ukraine

    I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close

  • Is SKS sound on Ukraine?

    He's been impressively consistent in supporting the government on everything they've done for Ukraine

    But..

    He tried twice to put Putin appeaser Corbyn into Downing St

    He's pleased his supporters by proving that he'll say anything to get elected

    Why would even they believe what he says now?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Leon said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
    it's not

    See my posts below!

    AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take

    AI would not have invaded Ukraine

    I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close

    Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    One for @Leon
    John Oliver vs AI images https://youtube.com/watch?v=3YNku5FKWjw
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2022
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer is certainly highly likely to become the PM after the next general election unless Truss gets a huge and sustained bounce.

    The more interesting question is if he can get most seats in a hung parliament or a small majority, in which case he can ignore the SNP. Or if Truss gets a large enough bounce to ensure the Tories still win most seats even if they lose their majority but Labour and the SNP are more than the Tories and DUP. That would still make Starmer PM but with indyref2 firmly back on the agenda

    No, it would not. Starmer will oppose a second referendum under all circumstances. What’s the SNP going to do? Ally themselves (even by abstaining) to bring him down and once again become labelled the Tartan Tories? Not a chance.

    There will be a second election within months just as in 1974. What would be intriguing is if it produced another well-hung (sic) Parliament.
    If the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament then the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote if Starmer and Truss refused them indyref2. Truss would therefore stay PM. I doubt a second election would make much difference, the 2 1974 elections just moved Labour from most seats to a tiny majority. However Labour had won most seats in even the first election
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
    Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I

    It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Is SKS sound on Ukraine?

    He's been impressively consistent in supporting the government on everything they've done for Ukraine

    But..

    He tried twice to put Putin appeaser Corbyn into Downing St

    He's pleased his supporters by proving that he'll say anything to get elected

    Why would even they believe what he says now?

    He would be less hawkish than Truss but more hawkish than Corbyn
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
    it's not

    See my posts below!

    AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take

    AI would not have invaded Ukraine

    I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close

    Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
    A fair and interesting point but if we reach the stage where we have superhuman AI pursuing aggressive nationalist agendas then we are totally fucked, and, indeed, we probably would have been fucked long before

    I believe AI is now exhibiting signs of Turing-test style sentience, and humanity needs to gather to decide how to use it, or not use it. This is as important as climate change, and might even save the climate

    It could be a unifier, which is badly needed. The robots are coming: let's work together to make them help us, not kill us

  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    DavidL said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
    Yes indeed! thank God our last leader's time wasn't embarrassing.
  • HYUFD said:

    Is SKS sound on Ukraine?

    He's been impressively consistent in supporting the government on everything they've done for Ukraine

    But..

    He tried twice to put Putin appeaser Corbyn into Downing St

    He's pleased his supporters by proving that he'll say anything to get elected

    Why would even they believe what he says now?

    He would be less hawkish than Truss but more hawkish than Corbyn
    I think you’ve given him a lot of room in that gap!
  • Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
    Yes indeed! thank God our last leader's time wasn't embarrassing.
    Well quite. Imagine if Corbyn had won in 2017 or 2019
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
    Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I

    It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
    You actually remind me of those with religion, as you seem to have an implicit belief that problems which have not yet been solved are either tractable or have already been solved.

    For example, whether there is an intrinsic difference between computation, and the operation of the human brain.
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    European leaders spoke about ever closer union when we were in the EU. It's made little or no difference.
    Did you not notice the Lisbon Treaty?
    Yes, that's made little or no difference either. The intention of ever closer union has been there since the initial discussions in Messina in the late 40s.

    The notion of a "European Union" has been around almost since the guns stopped firing in 1945. We had a chance to be at the forefront of that but decided not to and thus our membership of the EEC (and later the EU) was always going to be flawed.

    Now we're out there's nothing stopping the rest of the EU moving toward their objective of a united Europe but don't imagine they've only started talking about it because we've left. Our departure has probably helped those looking to create a united Europe or EuroFed or whatever but trying to make a cheap pro-Brexit point out of Scholz's speech is weak.
    Interesting (and I think accurate) comment in and of itself but also additionally because most Europhiles on here go to great lengths to deny there was ever an intent of ever closer union resulting in a united European state.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Sandpit said:

    One for @Leon
    John Oliver vs AI images https://youtube.com/watch?v=3YNku5FKWjw

    That's pretty lame. A year behind the curve and... not funny?

    There is a lot of humour in the new AI, he didn't find it
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
    Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I

    It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
    You actually remind me of those with religion, as you seem to have an implicit belief that problems which have not yet been solved are either tractable or have already been solved.

    For example, whether there is an intrinsic difference between computation, and the operation of the human brain.
    There is absolutely no difference. And I am religious!

    Mentation evolves from molecules
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
    Yes indeed! thank God our last leader's time wasn't embarrassing.
    Roger! Dear @Roger

    You are here at just the right time to observe that Stable Diffusion is "basically the same as Photoshop"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition

    I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
    I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child

    I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
    Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
    Wait.

    You read a Tom Knox book?

    They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
    You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
    Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I

    It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
    It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics.

    Yep

    They are all molecules.

    Yep

    They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change.

    Yep

    This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence.

    Nope

    So be it. Shit happens

    Yep
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    This was a pretty good ad from five years ago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIqln7vT4w

    Just reevaluated…

    Major academic research project finds that the intervention that most successfully reduced partisan animosity and anti-democratic attitudes was watching this Heinken ad, I kid you not.
    https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1564321493479264259
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    Utter nonsense.
    What is the limit on the number of people that Earth can support? 10 billion? 20 billion? A trillion?

    The planet is already substantially ecologically denuded and the situation continues to deteriorate. This is entirely the fault of human beings. Quite how things would be worse if men tied a knot in it after the first kid and kept doing so until there were only about three billion of us left I don't know. That would only take the world population back to where it was circa 1960. Civilization would continue. It'd have a much better chance of continuing than under the course apparently advocated by Mr Musk.
    It would be very bad because we'd be left with a very large number of aged people having their bottoms wiped by a small number of people of working age.
    Automate that shit. You can't just keep breeding bottom wipers
    https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/118980271348531200

    Though according to the Daily Sport another inventor died at the hands (?) of his invention - with what accuracy I have no idea.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    So.. After Scholz's speech today about ever closer union, we'd have nipped all of this in the bud if we'd still been in the EU, right?

    I am coming to the view that Scholz has been given office to make Merkle’s time look less embarrassing. He’s got a bit to go.
    Yes indeed! thank God our last leader's time wasn't embarrassing.
    Strangely our (still current for a few days) leader appears totally unembarassed by it, as do his more gloopy supporters. The sentient ones with a shred of self respect look down at their feet and mumble about Corbyn.
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
    it's not

    See my posts below!

    AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take

    AI would not have invaded Ukraine

    I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close

    Why would AI not have decided to invade Ukraine if it was programmed to pursue a Russian Nationalist agenda?
    Would the AI be that intelligent if you did? Though any AI is only as good as its input data, and you could feed it a lopsided data set, I guess.

    Perhaps, like the computer in War Games, it would conclude that the only way to win at the game of aggressive nationalism is not to play. Persue neutrality and extreme wealth instead. Compare Likely-Russia-2030 with Parallel-Universe-Russia-2030, where it calmly and competently got on with pumping and selling fossil fuels. Which one would have more actual oomph on the world stage?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,592
    Leon said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Elon Musk says 'civilisation would crumble' if sourcing oil and gas in the short term suddenly stops
    The world's richest person also warned of a challenge over the birth rate, claiming we must "make more babies" or "we will die with a whimper in adult diapers"."

    https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-says-civilisation-would-crumble-if-sourcing-oil-and-gas-in-the-short-term-suddenly-stops-12684700

    (1) "Sourcing oil and gas" - I presume he means prospecting for. And there is literally no chance that "sourcing" oil and gas stops. Not least because oil & gas have many, many uses.

    (2) He's not wrong about birth rates. And I think it's great that he's persuaded so many people to have his kids.
    He's completely wrong about birth rates. There are too many humans about already. If we want to have some chance of not completely wrecking the planet then a fairly lengthy period of global population decline would be welcome.
    He's really not:

    The reality is that birth rates are already below replacement in most countries.

    The next problem - and it's going to be a big problem - is how you persuade a small number of workers to pay for a large number of retirees.
    I agree it creates problems, but it's still probably a good thing on balance. The global population continuing to grow puts pressure on systems and would be more likely to push resources to some breaking point.

    A steadily falling (as opposed to collapsing) global population can be managed via some mix of migration from poorer, younger countries to older, richer countries. Plus people working longer and changes to taxation.

    The likes of South Korea with a incredibly low birth rate and very little immigration is setting itself up to become poorer over time though.
    it's not

    See my posts below!

    AI is on the verge of being real AI. It will do many jobs. Maybe all of them. It will solve this. Of course it might then decide to wipe out humanity but it's a risk we have to take

    AI would not have invaded Ukraine

    I genuinely believe Homo sapiens is now in a race between its own innate but unmeant self-destructiveness, and the ability to fabricate AI which will save us. Might be close

    Let me know when it can unload the dishwasher and stack all the plates in the right cupboard.
  • Who's the worse person to have working in Downing Street: Seumas Milne or Dominic Cummings?
This discussion has been closed.