Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Very good In Our Time (they're all fantastic) the other day. About the Manhattan project.
It was recorded before Ukraine so some of the comments were unfortunate/now outdated but so many interesting bits. In particular when it came to whether people regretted working on the bomb one of the participants said it was just as well it was used because otherwise people might not have realised its true devastating potential and then the chance of a more powerful version developed years afterwards being used more "casually" would have increased.
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
What is it about those particular traits that you find so objectionable?
Anyone lacking those traits fails to make it to the next level
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
Oh, and a nice sense of humour is a BIG plus.
"GSOH" surely. The staple and a requisite of so many Lonely Hearts adverts. I wonder if it is still used online.
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
What is it about those particular traits that you find so objectionable?
Anyone lacking those traits fails to make it to the next level
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
Oh, and a nice sense of humour is a BIG plus.
"GSOH" surely. The staple and a requisite of so many Lonely Hearts adverts. I wonder if it is still used online.
Just realised that I set off on my coastal walk 20 years ago last Saturday (October 1st 2002).
Which means for the next year, I'll know exactly where I was twenty years before.
For instance, today, 20 years ago, I did a 20-mile walk from Auldhame to Thorntonloch in Lothian. Including an attempt (failed) to cross a footbridge over the Tyne in the grounds of grounds of Tyninghame House.
Oh,. I know some of that sector well - part of the John Muir Way today.
Is it possible to cross that *&%$£&%*ing footbridge?
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Is there a risk the gas could ignite?
That would be much better for the environment. Methane is more greenhousey than carbon dioxide.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
Quite
The casual way people here are talking about "taking the risk of nuclear war" is mind boggling. They should all go and watch THREADS
Quarter the way in and nothing has happened yet, just gobsmacked that I was an adult in that world. The look and feel is as remote as Victorian times.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Thanks for the pics! We were discussing this the other day, and I was driving myself (more) mad trying to find piccies of an oil rig listing from that issue that I'd seen in the past. Good to see some more pics of the issue.
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Is there a risk the gas could ignite?
Yes. If it is in sufficient concentration. It will depend on the water depth, rate of release and weather conditions. But it has happened in the past with blowouts that set the sea on fire. Ocean Odessey in 1988 is a good example in the UK.
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Is there a risk the gas could ignite?
That would be much better for the environment. Methane is more greenhousey than carbon dioxide.
I wondered if someone would set it deliberately for that very reason. Would also make a nice warning to shipping.
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
Just realised that I set off on my coastal walk 20 years ago last Saturday (October 1st 2002).
Which means for the next year, I'll know exactly where I was twenty years before.
For instance, today, 20 years ago, I did a 20-mile walk from Auldhame to Thorntonloch in Lothian. Including an attempt (failed) to cross a footbridge over the Tyne in the grounds of grounds of Tyninghame House.
Oh,. I know some of that sector well - part of the John Muir Way today.
Is it possible to cross that *&%$£&%*ing footbridge?
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
Is there a risk the gas could ignite?
Yes. If it is in sufficient concentration. It will depend on the water depth, rate of release and weather conditions. But it has happened in the past with blowouts that set the sea on fire. Ocean Odessey in 1988 is a good example in the UK.
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
Oh, and a nice sense of humour is a BIG plus.
Well that's good because I am hilarious. People say that about me all the time. Especially when I have been in court.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Yes sorry I should have been clearer in providing a definition of "eligible". I was taking it to mean gorgeous, intelligent, sophisticated (at least the ones I know are). But for making babies then not or much, much less "eligible".
Actually your comment made me look up the word eligible and it says "desirable or suitable for a partner in marriage". Nothing about children but I suppose that is taken as read.
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
Maybe you can find another holiday/knapping trip that someone can pay you to go on, somewhere remote. You've been home quite a long time now.
You could look at it a different way. Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'. If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering. No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women. Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc. Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing? I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.
I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".
The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.
Now enter globalisation.
Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.
That all changed once our lives went online.
Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.
Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.
Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.
This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.
We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.
What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.
All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.
This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.
And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse
Internet dating. Dating apps
They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA
And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone. It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.
But this is simply and probably wrong (you fat clueless twat etc etc)
These days people meet via social media, very often dating apps. It’s absolutely standard
I wonder if I was one of the earliest PBers to meet a partner through the Internet? I met a GF through a bulletin board (Mono, if anyone remembers that) in 1992. Pre-WWW.
Mono was awesome at its peak. I never met a partner through it, but my sister did. (Genuinely true fact.)
They really named a dating app after an infectious disease ?
More age gappery. To me mono means not stereo.
Nope, mono was definitely a bug back in the 1980s. As well, as you say, as a hi-fi term.
Edit: but come to think of it, if that was the intedned meaning, still: why call a dating app "Single"?
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
Maybe you can find another holiday/knapping trip that someone can pay you to go on, somewhere remote. You've been home quite a long time now.
One hears that the Kerguelen Islands are lovely at this time of year.
Just realised that I set off on my coastal walk 20 years ago last Saturday (October 1st 2002).
Which means for the next year, I'll know exactly where I was twenty years before.
For instance, today, 20 years ago, I did a 20-mile walk from Auldhame to Thorntonloch in Lothian. Including an attempt (failed) to cross a footbridge over the Tyne in the grounds of grounds of Tyninghame House.
Oh,. I know some of that sector well - part of the John Muir Way today.
Is it possible to cross that *&%$£&%*ing footbridge?
No such thing in Scotland as an official crossing, unless one is talking about a LDP: It's either private curtilages or free to roam. In this case the map shows it is used. But it's too far from the shore to be convenient (hell, the entire bay is a big indentation anyway) and too far from the JMT to suit it.
What is truly terrifying is Methane Hydrates (aka Methane Clathrate). There is reckoned to be a vast amount of it under certain seabed and in various Tundra and it is only kept there by cold conditions. And we are warming up the planet....
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
I am not planning to leave London now or at anytime in the foreseeable future.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
Oh, and a nice sense of humour is a BIG plus.
Well that's good because I am hilarious. People say that about me all the time. Especially when I have been in court.
"personal cleanliness"?
That's the incels out, what with their basic attire of unwashed underpants and all the pizza boxes.
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
"83% of statistics are made up on the spot"
That guesstimate looks quite reasonable to me. There is clearly a significant risk of Putin doing this. And if he is going to do it, he will do it soon, before his army is chased into the Sea of Azov
8.6% might be a tad conservative
"In Washington, Putin’s Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm In a gathering Cold War atmosphere, American officials are gaming out responses should Russia resort to battlefield nuclear weapons."
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
Thanks for the pics! We were discussing this the other day, and I was driving myself (more) mad trying to find piccies of an oil rig listing from that issue that I'd seen in the past. Good to see some more pics of the issue.
That was the Petromar V which sank in the South China Sea in 1981.
Probably the most dramatic and best known example from a blowout though is the West Vanguard in Norway in 1985.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
Quite
The casual way people here are talking about "taking the risk of nuclear war" is mind boggling. They should all go and watch THREADS
Quarter the way in and nothing has happened yet, just gobsmacked that I was an adult in that world. The look and feel is as remote as Victorian times.
Brilliant film. I watched it a couple of nights ago following the discussion on here. Then I watched Blondie. I found Blondie more disturbing and turned it off.
You could look at it a different way. Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'. If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering. No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women. Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc. Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing? I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.
I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".
The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.
Now enter globalisation.
Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.
That all changed once our lives went online.
Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.
Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.
Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.
This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.
We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.
What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.
All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.
This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.
And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse
Internet dating. Dating apps
They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA
And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone. It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.
But this is simply and probably wrong (you fat clueless twat etc etc)
These days people meet via social media, very often dating apps. It’s absolutely standard
I wonder if I was one of the earliest PBers to meet a partner through the Internet? I met a GF through a bulletin board (Mono, if anyone remembers that) in 1992. Pre-WWW.
Mono was awesome at its peak. I never met a partner through it, but my sister did. (Genuinely true fact.)
They really named a dating app after an infectious disease ?
It wasn't a dating app - it was a bulletin board. Actually called monochrome (but people obviously called it Mono for short). Played a significant role in my life for ten or so years, including meeting some still-current friends through it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome_BBS
What is truly terrifying is Methane Hydrates (aka Methane Clathrate). There is reckoned to be a vast amount of it under certain seabed and in various Tundra and it is only kept there by cold conditions. And we are warming up the planet....
“Bank of England buys just £22mn of bonds in latest purchasing operation
Central bank has bought £3.7bn worth of government debt out of a possible £20bn since scheme launched“
I think it’s the opposite, they are actually using more of this money than analysts assumed they would need to, just the word or promise of doing it hasn’t proved enough.
I’m pretty confident of a 54/46 result Lula winning in worlds fourth largest democracy, if you want to take out a mortgage this month and put on it.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
Just realised that I set off on my coastal walk 20 years ago last Saturday (October 1st 2002).
Which means for the next year, I'll know exactly where I was twenty years before.
For instance, today, 20 years ago, I did a 20-mile walk from Auldhame to Thorntonloch in Lothian. Including an attempt (failed) to cross a footbridge over the Tyne in the grounds of grounds of Tyninghame House.
Oh,. I know some of that sector well - part of the John Muir Way today.
Is it possible to cross that *&%$£&%*ing footbridge?
No such thing in Scotland as an official crossing, unless one is talking about a LDP: It's either private curtilages or free to roam. In this case the map shows it is used. But it's too far from the shore to be convenient (hell, the entire bay is a big indentation anyway) and too far from the JMT to suit it.
Sometimes it is a bit hard to tell what is curtilage and what isn't from an OS map in Scotland but by "official" I mean on a recognized / signposted route, rather than legal.
Anyway, it seems the estate have said (posted above) you can cross it if you dare.
A thought-provoking if rather depressing header @Cyclefree. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. In my opinion Martin Luther King was right to say that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice".
Yes there is far to go, yes there are horrible setbacks. Incredibly brave people die fighting for freedom. There remains monstrous injustice.
But look back 500, 1000, 2000 years. Where in the world did women have anything like equal rights? Where was it routinely possible for people to succeed no matter what their background or birth? If you think things haven't improved ask yourself what time you would prefer to live in?
As we have progressed so I believe we will continue to progress - but not without continually fighting for that progress.
You may think I'm naive, complacent and deluded but I remain optimistic about the long-term future for equality, fairness and inclusion.
There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.
I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.
The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive
The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.
Perhaps you'd feel different if it was your son?
I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"
No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!
Low status men have always struggled to find partners. This is not a new phenomenon. It's just that in the Internet age, they get to see high status men having sex with beautiful women.
But you are wrong. The numbers of men going without sex have surged
"About 1 in 3 men ages 18 to 24 years reported no sexual activity in the past year, according to a new study
Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, past-year sexual inactivity rose from almost 19 percent to almost 31 percent among men ages 18 to 24, according to researchers led by Dr. Peter Ueda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden."
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
Quite
The casual way people here are talking about "taking the risk of nuclear war" is mind boggling. They should all go and watch THREADS
What's your alternative?
Start peace talks with this century's Hitler?
Everyone sits down and agrees that he can keep what he has captured and then everyone agrees to go back to their own business?
A thought-provoking if rather depressing header @Cyclefree. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. In my opinion Martin Luther King was right to say that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice".
Yes there is far to go, yes there are horrible setbacks. Incredibly brave people die fighting for freedom. There remains monstrous injustice.
But look back 500, 1000, 2000 years. Where in the world did women have anything like equal rights? Where was it routinely possible for people to succeed no matter what their background or birth? If you think things haven't improved ask yourself what time you would prefer to live in?
As we have progressed so I believe we will continue to progress - but not without continually fighting for that progress.
You may think I'm naive, complacent and deluded but I remain optimistic about the long-term future for equality, fairness and inclusion.
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
It is not wise for Zelensky to criticise Elon Musk, he has helped them a lot with his Starlink stuff.
It is a helpful intervention. When it comes down to it, the people who keep calling for 'beating back Putin' don't have any solution to the problems posed by the likely dissolution of the Russian state, nor do they have any answer to the 'nuclear weapons' problem, which should be taken a lot more seriously than it actually is.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
On dating apps, I met my wife on OkCupid about a year after I signed up to the site. We've been together for nearly 15 years since.
In the year before we met I sent a lot of messages that were not returned, made a few friends at group meetups and had a single very short-lived thing with someone that still confuses me.
I'm pretty sure that, going by the statistics, OkCupid would have rated my returns on my time as very poor and low. And yet I'm now married. This is because I only had to get properly lucky, and meet the right person for me, once (and then not drive them away by being an embittered arsehole when I did so).
It was a lot of rejection to fit into a year, and that isn't easy. So I'm sure the statistics are right, but I'm also confident that, for men looking for long-term relationships, they're not as bad as they sound, because you don't need to win on those statistics. If you're a guy who only wants to casually date lots of different women, and you're not in the top x%, then you will struggle.
I haven't seen a military expert suggest that battlefield nukes would have a positive result for Russia given the dispersal of Ukrainian forces. Launching a strategic at an urban target would be a suicide weapon. The entire world would want him dead. So it's an option in defeat only.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
Grow up. For those Europeans where the wolf has been at the door for 20 years, this is truly pathetic. Russia is finished. Its over. Even if they fired the 300 or so weapons they have left, NATO would probably be able to kill them in flight. The fact that they would fires is why we should stand firm. Cowardice gains nothing.
There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.
I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.
The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive
The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.
Perhaps you'd feel different if it was your son?
I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"
No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!
Low status men have always struggled to find partners. This is not a new phenomenon. It's just that in the Internet age, they get to see high status men having sex with beautiful women.
But you are wrong. The numbers of men going without sex have surged
"About 1 in 3 men ages 18 to 24 years reported no sexual activity in the past year, according to a new study
Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, past-year sexual inactivity rose from almost 19 percent to almost 31 percent among men ages 18 to 24, according to researchers led by Dr. Peter Ueda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden."
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
Quite
The casual way people here are talking about "taking the risk of nuclear war" is mind boggling. They should all go and watch THREADS
What's your alternative?
Start peace talks with this century's Hitler?
Everyone sits down and agrees that he can keep what he has captured and then everyone agrees to go back to their own business?
There is no good option. It is a choice of evils
Musk's proposal is a starting point. The Ukrainians hate it, but the survival of humanity comes ahead of whatever Ukrainians want
It has to be something which, for the West, leaves Putin chastened - so he won't do it again in five years - but it also gives Putin enough to claim as a rather meagre victory
The one thing I would change in Musk's plan is Ukraine pledging neutrality. They will want to join NATO, or get better guarantees of security than last time
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
think lake district would be a good place to go...well away from population centres and importantly on the west side of the uk so prevailing winds blow the fallout away
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h Understand the fixation with the nuclear issue but it would be helpful if Western policy community also spent time thinking about a more likely end game in which Russia continues to cede ground without going nuclear.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
think lake district would be a good place to go...well away from population centres and importantly on the west side of the uk so prevailing winds blow the fallout away
Except sellafield is a likely target and very much on the west coast…
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
Grow up. For those Europeans where the wolf has been at the door for 20 years, this is truly pathetic. Russia is finished. Its over. Even if they fired the 300 or so weapons they have left, NATO would probably be able to kill them in flight. The fact that they would fires is why we should stand firm. Cowardice gains nothing.
Exploring ways of avoiding nuclear war is not "cowardice". What is this juvenile nonsense? This armchair warrior abuse?
You decided to go and live in the Baltics, right next to Putin; that was your call. From London the balance of risks seems different
I should point out that shyness around women is not necessarily a problem. If I was interested in a shy man I would be patient to see if he opened up. I know some of my friends who have done this and had lovely times and relationships.
No, for me, the deal breakers are personal cleanliness, good manners, neat appearance when going out.
Oh, and a nice sense of humour is a BIG plus.
Well that's good because I am hilarious. People say that about me all the time. Especially when I have been in court.
What your clients say when they get the bill doesn't count!
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
There's precious little point fretting about the subject because:
1. There's nothing that we, as individuals, can do about it (always worth remembering in all these kinds of discussions.) 2. If Putin himself (or, failing that, close aides who could put a bullet in him) have any sense then they won't resort to nuclear weapons, because they won't work. Low yield battlefield devices will just blow small holes in the Ukrainian front and might well kill as many defending/retreating Russians as Ukrainians (as well as irradiating territory that Russia controls or wants for itself.) Trying to beat Ukraine by attempting to raze the entire country would provoke such a wave of global revulsion that even the Chinese and the Indians would be obliged to treat Russia as toxic waste, which would be total economic death for the Russian state. A strategic exchange between Russia and NATO ends with no Russia at all. So there's everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing it. 3. If the entire Russian leadership really is completely mad then we're already doomed regardless.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
So there are a few factors in play here:
1. There is a reason why there has not been a nuclear war yet. That does not mean that there will never be one, but it should go some way to being a reassurance that it is an unlikely prospect.
2. Nobody wins in nuclear war. Whilst Putin is clearly talking tough and is determined to play brinkmanship, the fact remains that Russia will be obliterated in any nuclear exchange. All out nuclear conflict seems a remote chance. Yes, there is always a chance, but…
3. We can’t all sit around paralysed with fear and concern of nuclear war. If it happens we will either be dead or we’ll be living changed lives beyond our current comprehension. We have little to no control over it. What use does fretting about it serve?
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
think lake district would be a good place to go...well away from population centres and importantly on the west side of the uk so prevailing winds blow the fallout away
It rains a lot though, which will bring the fallout down to the ground if you are unlucky. See: Chernobyl.
I am unable to go anywhere without abandoning dependents to their fate, but if I was running to somewhere the UK, I'd probably go for Tiree - if I could get there.
On dating apps, I met my wife on OkCupid about a year after I signed up to the site. We've been together for nearly 15 years since.
In the year before we met I sent a lot of messages that were not returned, made a few friends at group meetups and had a single very short-lived thing with someone that still confuses me.
I'm pretty sure that, going by the statistics, OkCupid would have rated my returns on my time as very poor and low. And yet I'm now married. This is because I only had to get properly lucky, and meet the right person for me, once (and then not drive them away by being an embittered arsehole when I did so).
It was a lot of rejection to fit into a year, and that isn't easy. So I'm sure the statistics are right, but I'm also confident that, for men looking for long-term relationships, they're not as bad as they sound, because you don't need to win on those statistics. If you're a guy who only wants to casually date lots of different women, and you're not in the top x%, then you will struggle.
I met my wife on Match.com 18 years ago.
My experience was very similar to yours.
I met my wife on PB.com. It is not officially a dating Site, but it worked for me.
And now I am going to go to bed with her.
Nite everybody. C u all in the morning....Vlad permitting.
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
Quite
The casual way people here are talking about "taking the risk of nuclear war" is mind boggling. They should all go and watch THREADS
What's your alternative?
Start peace talks with this century's Hitler?
Everyone sits down and agrees that he can keep what he has captured and then everyone agrees to go back to their own business?
There is no good option. It is a choice of evils
Musk's proposal is a starting point. The Ukrainians hate it, but the survival of humanity comes ahead of whatever Ukrainians want
It has to be something which, for the West, leaves Putin chastened - so he won't do it again in five years - but it also gives Putin enough to claim as a rather meagre victory
The one thing I would change in Musk's plan is Ukraine pledging neutrality. They will want to join NATO, or get better guarantees of security than last time
His "plan" includes:
- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
LOL. Just hilarious. I guess he has just dropped into this subject today having been busy with twitter or his lawyers for months but that is as likely as Putin joining Greenpeace.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
But there might be a middle way between "giving in to Putin" and "everyone has their eyes melted"
THAT is what I am exploring. A compromise which leaves Putin sobered but alive, and gives Ukraine much of what it wants, but not all (that is impossible)
If we demand the complete defeat of Russia and the violent end of Putin then we are pretty much guaranteeing nuclear holocaust (unless the Russian army mutinies). Putin will definitely go nuke if needs be, as will his regime
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Everyone sits down and agrees that he can keep what he has captured and then everyone agrees to go back to their own business?
The dumbest thing about this appeasement is that Russia has twice broken agreements with Ukraine which were meant to ensure their territorial integrity, so anyone advocating doing another deal is saying "third time lucky".
What needs to happen is Russia must be defeated, all Ukrainian territory must be recovered, Ukraine then arms itself to the teeth, and the world then waits for Putin to kick the bucket and an outbreak of sanity in Russia. But don't trust the Russians in the meantime.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
And money. A brutal truth. Women really like a man with money
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
And money. A brutal truth. Women really like a man with money
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
It's not just about Ukraine. It's about Putin successfully using nuclear blackmail and its effect on all of us. Where would he stop?
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
Grow up. For those Europeans where the wolf has been at the door for 20 years, this is truly pathetic. Russia is finished. Its over. Even if they fired the 300 or so weapons they have left, NATO would probably be able to kill them in flight. The fact that they would fires is why we should stand firm. Cowardice gains nothing.
Exploring ways of avoiding nuclear war is not "cowardice". What is this juvenile nonsense? This armchair warrior abuse?
You decided to go and live in the Baltics, right next to Putin; that was your call. From London the balance of risks seems different
Speaking of brave women, Russian authorities appear to have let Marina Ovsyannikova slip out through the back door. I hope she gets to a place of safety soon.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
There's precious little point fretting about the subject because:
1. There's nothing that we, as individuals, can do about it (always worth remembering in all these kinds of discussions.) 2. If Putin himself (or, failing that, close aides who could put a bullet in him) have any sense then they won't resort to nuclear weapons, because they won't work. Low yield battlefield devices will just blow small holes in the Ukrainian front and might well kill as many defending/retreating Russians as Ukrainians (as well as irradiating territory that Russia controls or wants for itself.) Trying to beat Ukraine by attempting to raze the entire country would provoke such a wave of global revulsion that even the Chinese and the Indians would be obliged to treat Russia as toxic waste, which would be total economic death for the Russian state. A strategic exchange between Russia and NATO ends with no Russia at all. So there's everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing it. 3. If the entire Russian leadership really is completely mad then we're already doomed regardless.
1. Not true. PB has a tiny bit of influence, and is read by politicians and journalists. If the climate of opinion in the UK changes as to what we want from Ukraine, that is significant. The UK is a player here
2. This is a complete misunderstanding. You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work. I can easily see it working in Europe as the euro goes down to 30c and Europe faces Economic Depression and inflation of 500%
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
To paraphrase, why care about a conflict in a far away land of which we know nothing?
We've been there before, of course. Give an expansionist tyrant 20 miles and he'll try to seize 2,000. If he learns that nuclear blackmail works once then he (and his eventual successors) will just repeat the trick every few years until the Russian Federation stretches all the way to the Atlantic.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
Comments
It was recorded before Ukraine so some of the comments were unfortunate/now outdated but so many interesting bits. In particular when it came to whether people regretted working on the bomb one of the participants said it was just as well it was used because otherwise people might not have realised its true devastating potential and then the chance of a more powerful version developed years afterwards being used more "casually" would have increased.
If the train's going at high speed, the driver won't have time to reactor it.
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1577028410102407170
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.22/-2.61041/56.00058/hot/all
I suspect it isn't official.
If you are Russia with shitty transport links over the Dnipro your choice is to hold woth what youve got or gamble and stick more troops in.
But capacity is very limited. There is no quick retreat. If they put in nore troops and things go badly then they are super fuxked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-INHarLmFs
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Here's the data in full:
https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-are-attracted-to-women-in-their-20s-2014-10
The ferries have been sunk - by HIMARS.
The attempts at pontoon bridges have been destroyed - by HIMARS.
Helicopters and planes are brought down - by MANPADs
They can't be reinforced. Or supplied. They surrender. Or die.
Would it burn clean though?
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2nDTrDPZJBEerZGrk/samotsvety-nuclear-risk-update-october-2022
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
Seems to be crossable now? But I'd want to check with Dunbar TI, as it could be quite tricky - lots of reclaimed estuary land.
https://tyninghamevillagehall.org.uk/files/2020/08/Permitted-walking-routes-around-Tyninghame-House-e1597518817632.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
A lake just suddenly… errupting? Out of nowhere, a 100m tall column of water. And the whole lake suddenly turning from blue to deep red.
Chemistry is odd.
Actually your comment made me look up the word eligible and it says "desirable or suitable for a partner in marriage". Nothing about children but I suppose that is taken as read.
Bye Leon, erh MissG, who will it be next Sean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
I may even go to Camden for a pub crawl soon!
That's the incels out, what with their basic attire of unwashed underpants and all the pizza boxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)
And more recently this!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
8.6% might be a tad conservative
"In Washington, Putin’s Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm
In a gathering Cold War atmosphere, American officials are gaming out responses should Russia resort to battlefield nuclear weapons."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/world/europe/washington-putin-nuclear-threats.html
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
In other words, the Ukrainians are convinced that they will do much better than Musk’s plans, while the Russians aren’t rejecting it.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1577031589204086784
That was the Petromar V which sank in the South China Sea in 1981.
Probably the most dramatic and best known example from a blowout though is the West Vanguard in Norway in 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome_BBS
And it is still going, sort of:
https://www.mono.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LajZxIQmZzs
I’m pretty confident of a 54/46 result Lula winning in worlds fourth largest democracy, if you want to take out a mortgage this month and put on it.
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1576999523192549376?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1576999523192549376|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=
Some things that seem to need emphasising. Poseidon is a Russian nuclear-powered torpedo that can be nuclear-armed. But what is being discussed (originally, here: https://repubblica.it/esteri/2022/10/01/news/belgorod_sottomarino_mar_baltico_russia-368180406/ ) is a POSSIBLE test of the PLATFORM, and NOT an explosive nuclear test.
https://twitter.com/russianforces/status/1577001282358767617?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1577001282358767617|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=
This is making rounds. I don't want to sound too confident, but as I understand it, these trucks are standard security vehicles that are used by various services, such as RVSN. See a discussion: https://twitter.com/russianforces/status/1576635085566390272?s=20&t=9dh-UHOSTNBrwMyxw7xfaA I'm reasonably confident a 'nuke' convoy would look different
https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1576744981913432064
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
Anyway, it seems the estate have said (posted above) you can cross it if you dare.
Too late.
Yes there is far to go, yes there are horrible setbacks. Incredibly brave people die fighting for freedom. There remains monstrous injustice.
But look back 500, 1000, 2000 years. Where in the world did women have anything like equal rights? Where was it routinely possible for people to succeed no matter what their background or birth? If you think things haven't improved ask yourself what time you would prefer to live in?
As we have progressed so I believe we will continue to progress - but not without continually fighting for that progress.
You may think I'm naive, complacent and deluded but I remain optimistic about the long-term future for equality, fairness and inclusion.
It's fracking and welfare cuts next.
This is a de facto hung Parliament.
Start peace talks with this century's Hitler?
Everyone sits down and agrees that he can keep what he has captured and then everyone agrees to go back to their own business?
You might enjoy this....
https://youtu.be/yCm9Ng0bbEQ
It is a helpful intervention. When it comes down to it, the people who keep calling for 'beating back Putin' don't have any solution to the problems posed by the likely dissolution of the Russian state, nor do they have any answer to the 'nuclear weapons' problem, which should be taken a lot more seriously than it actually is.
My experience was very similar to yours.
Musk's proposal is a starting point. The Ukrainians hate it, but the survival of humanity comes ahead of whatever Ukrainians want
It has to be something which, for the West, leaves Putin chastened - so he won't do it again in five years - but it also gives Putin enough to claim as a rather meagre victory
The one thing I would change in Musk's plan is Ukraine pledging neutrality. They will want to join NATO, or get better guarantees of security than last time
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
·
3h
Understand the fixation with the nuclear issue but it would be helpful if Western policy community also spent time thinking about a more likely end game in which Russia continues to cede ground without going nuclear.
https://twitter.com/LawDavF/status/1576980817359917062
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
You decided to go and live in the Baltics, right next to Putin; that was your call. From London the balance of risks seems different
1. There's nothing that we, as individuals, can do about it (always worth remembering in all these kinds of discussions.)
2. If Putin himself (or, failing that, close aides who could put a bullet in him) have any sense then they won't resort to nuclear weapons, because they won't work. Low yield battlefield devices will just blow small holes in the Ukrainian front and might well kill as many defending/retreating Russians as Ukrainians (as well as irradiating territory that Russia controls or wants for itself.) Trying to beat Ukraine by attempting to raze the entire country would provoke such a wave of global revulsion that even the Chinese and the Indians would be obliged to treat Russia as toxic waste, which would be total economic death for the Russian state. A strategic exchange between Russia and NATO ends with no Russia at all. So there's everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing it.
3. If the entire Russian leadership really is completely mad then we're already doomed regardless.
1. There is a reason why there has not been a nuclear war yet. That does not mean that there will never be one, but it should go some way to being a reassurance that it is an unlikely prospect.
2. Nobody wins in nuclear war. Whilst Putin is clearly talking tough and is determined to play brinkmanship, the fact remains that Russia will be obliterated in any nuclear exchange. All out nuclear conflict seems a remote chance. Yes, there is always a chance, but…
3. We can’t all sit around paralysed with fear and concern of nuclear war. If it happens we will either be dead or we’ll be living changed lives beyond our current comprehension. We have little to no control over it. What use does fretting about it serve?
I am unable to go anywhere without abandoning dependents to their fate, but if I was running to somewhere the UK, I'd probably go for Tiree - if I could get there.
And now I am going to go to bed with her.
Nite everybody. C u all in the morning....Vlad permitting.
Only 10% pay the higher rate!
- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
LOL. Just hilarious. I guess he has just dropped into this subject today having been busy with twitter or his lawyers for months but that is as likely as Putin joining Greenpeace.
THAT is what I am exploring. A compromise which leaves Putin sobered but alive, and gives Ukraine much of what it wants, but not all (that is impossible)
If we demand the complete defeat of Russia and the violent end of Putin then we are pretty much guaranteeing nuclear holocaust (unless the Russian army mutinies). Putin will definitely go nuke if needs be, as will his regime
Women in their 40s find it hard to get laid.
This isn't complicated.
What needs to happen is Russia must be defeated, all Ukrainian territory must be recovered, Ukraine then arms itself to the teeth, and the world then waits for Putin to kick the bucket and an outbreak of sanity in Russia. But don't trust the Russians in the meantime.
The PB Herd was *incredibly*, viciously cruel about Gordon Brown.
Truss is having an easy time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/03/russian-marina-ovsyannikova-ukraine-war-protest-escape-house-arrest
2. This is a complete misunderstanding. You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work. I can easily see it working in Europe as the euro goes down to 30c and Europe faces Economic Depression and inflation of 500%
3. Probably true
We've been there before, of course. Give an expansionist tyrant 20 miles and he'll try to seize 2,000. If he learns that nuclear blackmail works once then he (and his eventual successors) will just repeat the trick every few years until the Russian Federation stretches all the way to the Atlantic.