It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
But that view of life before and after Johnson highlights something that is now settling among all but the most hardened Brexit supporters: a quiet, slightly tortured realisation that all those optimistic visions of life outside the EU are not going to materialise, even if the crises triggered by Vladimir Putin eventually subside.
British people being British people, this is not yet a matter of any widespread anger. Though they probably ought to, no one is about to charge into the streets and demand any kind of Brexit reckoning.
This is a fundamental misconception that seems to be shared by lots of opponents of Brexit: the idea that gullible voters were conned into voting for unicorns and sunlit uplands, rather than simply concluding that on balance, it was better not to be part of a flawed political project and that the risks of leaving were being exaggerated.
In my personal experience, the reasons that people gave for voting for Brexit were extremely varied. These ranged from reducing immigration and more money for the NHS to disgust with the size of Neil Kinnock's pension! I don't think anyone mentioned discontent with being part of a flawed political project though.
And don't forget, "we stood alone in 1940 and we can do it again".
Fair amount of that. Usually in a vox pop from a market or something.
And its posher, virtue signalling, faux intellectual equivalent - it was about "sovereignty".
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
It's amazing how fast these Russian investigative committees move when there is an attack against the Russian regime, but how slowly they proceed when investigating the death of one of Putin's enemies.
Imminent armageddon notwithstanding (apparently), we've had some real voting today in the Lower Saxony election. As I previewed last evening, it looked as though the Greens and AfD were going to move forward at the expense of the two governing coalition parties, the CDU and SPD, with the FDP right on the cusp of survival.
Early days with just two of the eighty seven polling districts but the exit poll projection as follows:
It looks as though the FDP will just miss the cut but that's NOT certain. The first casualty of the night is the CDU leader and Deputy President Bernd Althusmann and it's a far from ringing endorsement for the party which has been edging back towards 30% in the national polls and does lead the Greens and SPD.
It's not that bad a result for the SPD and it's now possible for their leader Stephan Weil to renew a coalition with the Greens as they would have a clear majority in the Landtag.
The Greens will be happy with a decent advance as will AfD while for the FDP the alarm bells will be ringing.
Apart from the folly of appeasement one would have hoped that that another lesson from WWII that we learnt was to crush utterly the criminal gangs that run countries.
Putin and his thugs are on the thick end of a drubbing and humiliation in Ukraine. When Putin is in his box or deposed we should admit Ukraine to NATO and all pressure maintained on Russia for reparations to Ukraine. The democracies of this world must be prevail and be seen to win.
China take note.
If I recall correctly the aid of one of the worst criminal gangs in history was required to conclude WWII.
I assume you mean the involvement of the Mafia in the capture of Sicily. I believe it was counter-productive to the Allied aims but they did convince the US authorities they were indispensable.
Apart from the folly of appeasement one would have hoped that that another lesson from WWII that we learnt was to crush utterly the criminal gangs that run countries.
Putin and his thugs are on the thick end of a drubbing and humiliation in Ukraine. When Putin is in his box or deposed we should admit Ukraine to NATO and all pressure maintained on Russia for reparations to Ukraine. The democracies of this world must be prevail and be seen to win.
China take note.
If I recall correctly the aid of one of the worst criminal gangs in history was required to conclude WWII.
I assume you mean the involvement of the Mafia in the capture of Sicily. I believe it was counter-productive to the Allied aims but they did convince the US authorities they were indispensable.
I thought he was referring to the Soviet Communist Party.
But that view of life before and after Johnson highlights something that is now settling among all but the most hardened Brexit supporters: a quiet, slightly tortured realisation that all those optimistic visions of life outside the EU are not going to materialise, even if the crises triggered by Vladimir Putin eventually subside.
British people being British people, this is not yet a matter of any widespread anger. Though they probably ought to, no one is about to charge into the streets and demand any kind of Brexit reckoning.
This is a fundamental misconception that seems to be shared by lots of opponents of Brexit: the idea that gullible voters were conned into voting for unicorns and sunlit uplands, rather than simply concluding that on balance, it was better not to be part of a flawed political project and that the risks of leaving were being exaggerated.
In my personal experience, the reasons that people gave for voting for Brexit were extremely varied. These ranged from reducing immigration and more money for the NHS to disgust with the size of Neil Kinnock's pension! I don't think anyone mentioned discontent with being part of a flawed political project though.
And don't forget, "we stood alone in 1940 and we can do it again".
Fair amount of that. Usually in a vox pop from a market or something.
And its posher, virtue signalling, faux intellectual equivalent - it was about "sovereignty".
This is just patronizing nonsense that seeks to dismiss Leaver views. It's a bit like Remainers insisting Brexit supporters all wanting out of the EU because of racism. The fact it was about white immigrants was just evidence that they were REALLY racist because even hated other white people. Then being sure that the Tories bringing in all the Hong Kongers was sure to antagonize all their racist base. Then, when it turned out there was a lot of support for it, they just moved on, never stopping to consider their prejudices.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that people who use the shorthand "sovereignty" aren't actually romanticist for WW2 but have legitimate arguments?
A 1 in 6 chance that human civilisation is about to be extinguished
"Many people have asked me what I think the odds are of an imminent major US-Russia nuclear war. My current estimate is about the same as losing in Russian roulette: one in six. The goal of this post is to explain how I arrived at this estimate. Please forgive its cold and analytic nature despite the emotionally charged topic; I'm trying not to be biased by hopes, fears or wishful thinking. "
its hard to be precise with these things but the odds feel to me about right , at this lebvel of probability we really need to step back and do what we can at our end even if it means Putin gets away with it
And now you will get the Combined Sofa Militia of PB, led by General @TSE and Corporal @Bartholomew,LeRoberts calling you a "fucking appeaser"
Please, I'd be a Marshal, not some mere general.
Plus, you are a fucking appeaser.
Your panty wetting routine is amusing, go watch Threads again.
It's not amusing in the least, it's deeply bloody tedious.
Repeating "we're all going to die because some bellend on Twitter says so" on an endless loop does not constitute comedy.
Given how wrong Leon has been on so many things it is reassuring to know he is convinced we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust kind of guarantees we won't.
Actually for all his OTT (but entertaining ) drama ,Leon is very insightful about things that matter
You mean his comments about Covid in March 2020 when he fled his home demanding lockdown and quoting some projections that we'd all die from Covid-19 by October 2020?
I believe Leon (or an incarnation of Leon) did advise to sell any shares before the FTSE crashed becasue of covid
No, that was me. He posted shortly after the crash started that he had done so. Whether this was true, or merely more of his small-dick-syndrome boasting, can be left as an exercise for the reader.
Flat out 100% lie, mate. He and I advised and in my case perpetrated a complete portfolio dump weeks before you got the memo and came up with some rather mimsy tips about investing several dozens of pounds in put options, whatever the fuck they are. CBA to trawl the historical record, but it's all there.
It is indeed all there, and your memory is faulty. Not least because I have never owned a put option. Leon (or whoever he was back then) did his usual act of flailing every which way, and after the event was well underway claimed to have acted some time earlier. That isn’t prescience nor actionable advice, although it is true that prices continued to fall thereafter and I regularly updated PB’ers with the positions I was taking, in real time, not days later.
Absolutely not true. Sorry, but there it is.
You’ve clearly fallen for Leon’s ability after the event for making out that he’d predicted something that he hadn’t, usually achieved by a mix of posting about every unlikely future possibility that enters his head amplified by a generous helping of exaggeration and some deliberate amnesia over the timescales.
No
Here's me in Feb 2020 (28 Feb it looks like from context)
"But what we have is a second-order problem of people panicking about panic where there is not a lot of panic. We have a very, very big problem which justifies taking very, very big steps which might count as panic in other circs. I did something really panicky the other day, I SOLD ALL MY EQUITIES with the ftse at 7400 odd. What a twat: I have saved myself the price of a brand new Bentley and saddled myself with a CGT bill. If only I had kept calm and carried on.
What is really baffling is the attempt of the non-panickers to connect unrelated historical and prospective probabilities. If you think you are going to do x about coronavirus because the chances of dying in a road accident in country y are n%, you are doing this wrong."
Which was true. And I know that I was, not following Leon (because he doesn't purport to be a source of financial advice and I wouldn't treat him as one) but in lockstep with him.
FTSE 7400 seems to date us to 7-21 Feb and if you want to continue embarrassing yourself we can drill down further.
What has Leon ever done to you by the way? Raped your dog?
I made no comment about what you may or may not have posted, so you are trying to move onto new ground. Although by claiming to have posted something on 28 Feb - when the index had fallen dramatically to around 6500 relating to action you claim to have taken a week or two earlier when it was at 7400 you rather make my point. It’s like posting on a Monday about your winning horse on Saturday.
All I said was that Leon made no worthwhile predictions but rather claimed to have acted only once the trend was obvious and well underway, and that I posted details of my positions in real time on multiple occasions, which had others followed would have been winning advice. Both of which are true.
LOL here is a gorgeous bit of owlish wrongness on 27 Feb
"My default case is that this slide will be relatively short lived, but there won’t be a bounce back - either a flat spring or a modest recovery as the virus fades in the sun. Then a torrid autumn when we really do test new lows.
For the Dow I am sticking by the figure of 24,000-ish for the short term low that I offered up on Tuesday, reflecting the level it held for 2016-17."
Returning, he is right that I got the later trends that year wrong. I never claimed any special talent or expertise. I did however get the earlier part of the year right and called it in advance.
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He didn't "give" Starlink to them. He charged the US government for it to the tune of billions of dollars.
Apart from the folly of appeasement one would have hoped that that another lesson from WWII that we learnt was to crush utterly the criminal gangs that run countries.
Putin and his thugs are on the thick end of a drubbing and humiliation in Ukraine. When Putin is in his box or deposed we should admit Ukraine to NATO and all pressure maintained on Russia for reparations to Ukraine. The democracies of this world must be prevail and be seen to win.
China take note.
If I recall correctly the aid of one of the worst criminal gangs in history was required to conclude WWII.
I assume you mean the involvement of the Mafia in the capture of Sicily. I believe it was counter-productive to the Allied aims but they did convince the US authorities they were indispensable.
I thought he was referring to the Soviet Communist Party.
Apart from the folly of appeasement one would have hoped that that another lesson from WWII that we learnt was to crush utterly the criminal gangs that run countries.
Putin and his thugs are on the thick end of a drubbing and humiliation in Ukraine. When Putin is in his box or deposed we should admit Ukraine to NATO and all pressure maintained on Russia for reparations to Ukraine. The democracies of this world must be prevail and be seen to win.
China take note.
If I recall correctly the aid of one of the worst criminal gangs in history was required to conclude WWII.
I assume you mean the involvement of the Mafia in the capture of Sicily. I believe it was counter-productive to the Allied aims but they did convince the US authorities they were indispensable.
I thought he was referring to the Soviet Communist Party.
Interestingly at the end of this clip, Putin is told that Russian citizens helped in the operation to blow up the Kerch bridge. He could be laying the ground for more internal repression.
@maxseddon Putin makes his first comments about the explosion on the bridge to Crimea. He says it's a "terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure" and blames "Ukrainian secret services" for it.
From what I have seen and on the information we know so far it looks like it could have been a suicide truck bomb driven by a Russian national. In any case, a spectacular sabotage.
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
No fucking shit. I still find it tough to believe a Russian first strike will materialise. All of the analysts seem to be overestimating the chances IMO. Simply any nuclear strike means there's no way back for Russia, even if the west doesn't retaliate with nukes itself the sanctions isolation will be made permanent.
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Remainers are going to spend the next 50 years blaming every bad thing on Brexit, aren’t they?
I guess that’s a neat irony. Hopefully they will end up moaning about all the “straight Brexit bananas”
Whereas you'll be spending the next 20 years complaining about endless "woke" "lefty" Governments and moaning about how much better life was with the Tories in charge.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Just to follow up on Lower Saxony, I've just watched some of the ARD coverage and it seems the SPD and Green leaders have more or less agreed they will form a Government if they get a majority in the Landtag.
The more detailed polling also suggests the local SPD Minister President is very popular and this has been a big factor.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
Apart from the folly of appeasement one would have hoped that that another lesson from WWII that we learnt was to crush utterly the criminal gangs that run countries.
Putin and his thugs are on the thick end of a drubbing and humiliation in Ukraine. When Putin is in his box or deposed we should admit Ukraine to NATO and all pressure maintained on Russia for reparations to Ukraine. The democracies of this world must be prevail and be seen to win.
China take note.
If I recall correctly the aid of one of the worst criminal gangs in history was required to conclude WWII.
I assume you mean the involvement of the Mafia in the capture of Sicily. I believe it was counter-productive to the Allied aims but they did convince the US authorities they were indispensable.
Nope, I meant predecessors of Putin and his thugs, Stalin & co. The Mafia example is another one of course, but not trumpeted the way that the alliance with the courageous Red Army and Marshall Stalin was.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I think that he likes to shitpost on twitter and draw reactions; he's hardly alone in having that hobby, he just happens to also be very rich.
Remainers are going to spend the next 50 years blaming every bad thing on Brexit, aren’t they?
I guess that’s a neat irony. Hopefully they will end up moaning about all the “straight Brexit bananas”
Not me. I voted Remain. Leaving was a huge mistake imho and economically we will be worse off and all this bullsh*t about global Britain free trading to Asia and NZ is whistling in the wind. The vote will do sod all for migration which was one of the major issues and it seems so far will do sod all for the 'left behind' towns in Mids and North that just voted leave because something had to change.
But life will go on. We've been a relatively prosperous country since at least the middle ages and overall it wont make an utterly massive difference in the large scale of things. But there will be numerous annoyances and ridiculous outcomes (e.g. Horizon research) and I am sad about it all.
I doubt we will rejoin in my lifetime but who knows.
I wouldn't personally support that anyway until the EU sorts out where it really stands on the single currency.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
Quite. Musk is not only the world’s richest man - with his hands on remarkable technology - he has 100m followers on Twitter. Which he uses rather well
Not realising that he is an important player is a failure to understand modern politics. A lot of it is done on social media, not by important men having important secret meetings
Whether you approve of musk is a different question. Opinions understandably differ. He can be a total prick
@maxseddon The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
No fucking shit. I still find it tough to believe a Russian first strike will materialise. All of the analysts seem to be overestimating the chances IMO. Simply any nuclear strike means there's no way back for Russia, even if the west doesn't retaliate with nukes itself the sanctions isolation will be made permanent.
Plus China will go ape as Taiwan will surely arm itself with nukes if the taboo has been broken?
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
He's intelligent but clearly stubborn and with an incredibly fragile ego. He also seems to react in highly emotive ways to any criticism, personal or professional, so it would seem as simple as he made a stupid intervention, and has doubled down because his feelings were hurt by the reaction.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
Musk gets lots of things wrong. In his calmer moments of public introspection he freely admits this. My earlier comment on him “being down the rabbit hole” was after I’d seen this tweet that he’d been up all night thinking how to solve it. It feels like he’s in a manic phase, verging on a kind of messiah complex. He’s very self aware of cognitive biases but is not immune from them, most especially at times of high stress. He also surrounds himself with libertarian tech bros who don’t tend to have an especially well rounded understanding of the world, to put it mildly.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
People like Kanye West and Elon Musk have realised that looking more stupid and outlandish than you probably actually are is what keeps you in the headlines and allows you to do a lot of underhand shit in your professional life without scrutiny, because everyone’s distracted by your tweets
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
He's intelligent but clearly stubborn and with an incredibly fragile ego. He also seems to react in highly emotive ways to any criticism, personal or professional, so it would seem as simple as he made a stupid intervention, and has doubled down because his feelings were hurt by the reaction.
That's a bit harsh on Leon, assuming that's who you're writing about. But fair comment.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I think that he likes to shitpost on twitter and draw reactions; he's hardly alone in having that hobby, he just happens to also be very rich.
Can't he get a normal billionaire hobby like designing super yachts or hunting people for sport or something?
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them turn the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
Indeed I don't. I imagine he could get a phone call returned, but I certainly don't think he has anything like a real ongoing personal connection with anybody of significance here. Further, I don't think he's serious about this, because if he was he'd be getting on with it quietly, not posting on Twitter about his sleepless night wrestling with Serious World Problems. If you hope to broker some kind of deal then you do not start out by making a big noise about it in public where all sides will feel obliged to explicitly reject it.
Musk quoted facts about Ukrainian public opinion and the history of Crimea to support his case that are simply wrong and which 5 minutes Googling could could have corrected. He's a highly intelligent person, who you would expect to get his basic facts right, so I wonder why he's doing this.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
Quite. Musk is not only the world’s richest man - with his hands on remarkable technology - he has 100m followers on Twitter. Which he uses rather well
Not realising that he is an important player is a failure to understand modern politics. A lot of it is done on social media, not by important men having important secret meetings
Whether you approve of musk is a different question. Opinions understandably differ. He can be a total prick
Musk had an important secret meeting with Twitter, the details of which were disclosed via discovery in a court case, resulting in him hurriedly backing down and agreeing to honour the deal reached in said secret meeting.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
I have just learned - from reading PB - that Suella Braverman is Home Secretary.
I also learned some weeks ago - from reading PB - that Jake Rees is Business Secretary.
Truss is completely crackers. QED.
Honestly, most of the appointments are not obviously crackers, just inexperienced. But as Kwarteng has shown, you can quickly reveal yourself to be crackers.
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
It's genuinely bizarre - "My leader, Boris, just lost his position because he demanded too much from the MPs and treated them like dirt; now that I have won, I should act like they are of no consequence and will radically change position simply because I say so, even if it is super unpopular"
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
Francis Scarr @francis_scarr · 6m It took 38 hours for Vladimir Putin to comment on the Crimean bridge explosion
This is a bit weird:
"According to Mr Bastrykin, investigators have established that the truck which they say blew up travelled through Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia and Krasnodar Territory."
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
Also what about the availability of lithium and environmental impact of mining?
Francis Scarr @francis_scarr · 6m It took 38 hours for Vladimir Putin to comment on the Crimean bridge explosion
This is a bit weird:
"According to Mr Bastrykin, investigators have established that the truck which they say blew up travelled through Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia and Krasnodar Territory."
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
It's genuinely bizarre - "My leader, Boris, just lost his position because he demanded too much from the MPs and treated them like dirt; now that I have won, I should act like they are of no consequence and will radically change position simply because I say so, even if it is super unpopular"
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
Yes. It is quite bizarre. She spent months scrupulously saying exactly what was needed to win the membership. And precisely no time at all getting her MP's on side.
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
It's genuinely bizarre - "My leader, Boris, just lost his position because he demanded too much from the MPs and treated them like dirt; now that I have won, I should act like they are of no consequence and will radically change position simply because I say so, even if it is super unpopular"
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
I think the 20%+ Labour leads have something to do with the lack of engagement of Tory MPS with Liz Truss' agenda. She's slightly unlucky. The Tories have been denying reality since 2016 (which indirectly is why it does all come back to Brexit) without adverse political effects. Reality comes back to bite eventually. Unfortunately for Truss reality chose her first weeks in office to do the biting. She might have hoped to have kept reality at bay at least for a couple of years past the next election.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Makes me proud that we still get fingered for stuff happening in the world #globalbritain
ETA: Well, our 'zionists' anyway. Still up there with the American 'zionists' punching above their weight on the world stage
Reading up a little about Bolivian politics of late - not pleasant.
The current President, Luis Arce, was the Finance Minister in the Morales Presidency which was strongly pro-Cuba and pro-Venezuela and anti-Washington.
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
It's genuinely bizarre - "My leader, Boris, just lost his position because he demanded too much from the MPs and treated them like dirt; now that I have won, I should act like they are of no consequence and will radically change position simply because I say so, even if it is super unpopular"
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
I think the 20%+ Labour leads have something to do with the lack of engagement of Tory MPS with Liz Truss' agenda. She's slightly unlucky. The Tories have been denying reality since 2016 (which indirectly is why it does all come back to Brexit) without adverse political effects. Reality comes back to bite eventually. Unfortunately for Truss reality chose her first weeks in office to do the biting. She might have hoped to have kept reality at bay at least for a couple of years past the next election.
That's fair. Part of it is that the public simply didn't accept the second attempt to reinvent the party in the last 3 years. She wanted a fresh start, and got it in the worst way possible.
Remainers are going to spend the next 50 years blaming every bad thing on Brexit, aren’t they?
I guess that’s a neat irony. Hopefully they will end up moaning about all the “straight Brexit bananas”
Not me. I voted Remain. Leaving was a huge mistake imho and economically we will be worse off and all this bullsh*t about global Britain free trading to Asia and NZ is whistling in the wind. The vote will do sod all for migration which was one of the major issues and it seems so far will do sod all for the 'left behind' towns in Mids and North that just voted leave because something had to change.
But life will go on. We've been a relatively prosperous country since at least the middle ages and overall it wont make an utterly massive difference in the large scale of things. But there will be numerous annoyances and ridiculous outcomes (e.g. Horizon research) and I am sad about it all.
I doubt we will rejoin in my lifetime but who knows.
I wouldn't personally support that anyway until the EU sorts out where it really stands on the single currency.
Brexit is a very particular problem caused by a decades long failure of statecraft, with similarities to the Scottish problem. It is was going to be a recurring problem if we remained, and a recurring problem if we left.
This is well shown by the immense lack of enthusiasm about remaining (for what other reason could the campaign have been such quotidien rubbish), and the fact that despite running a populist campaign leave could only get just above half the vote.
The correct answer was and is a plan in which the first step is leaving the political structures but joining EEA/EFTA. This also required statecraft as it would have given most of the MPs most of what they wanted but would have failed the Daily Mail/populist test.
Parliament's epic fail there will haunt them.
Will Labour have the courage to put a Brexit review with all options except rejoin on the table? I hope so.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
The Tesla semi hasn’t been delayed because of any problem with the energy density or range of the vehicle. But because they use a shed ton of battery cells and there’s a global shortage of cells, it’s taking time to ramp up the supply but slowly but surely we’re getting there.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
Also what about the availability of lithium and environmental impact of mining?
Lithium is abundant, it’s the 10th most common element on earth. It only makes up 3% of the weight of a lithium ion cell. The problem isn’t availability of the ore but scaling up of refining capacity. Nothing too insurmountable.
What's so funny about this is that she took a "to the victor go the spoils" approach when she won, assuming that Tory MPs were merely compliant drones to do her bidding. Nothing more.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
It's genuinely bizarre - "My leader, Boris, just lost his position because he demanded too much from the MPs and treated them like dirt; now that I have won, I should act like they are of no consequence and will radically change position simply because I say so, even if it is super unpopular"
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
Yes. It is quite bizarre. She spent months scrupulously saying exactly what was needed to win the membership. And precisely no time at all getting her MP's on side.
Being charitable, she must know that she might only have two years before she is out, even if it goes well. And she clearly has a radical agenda. So strike while the iron is hot and all that. Even the "here are the tax cuts, trust us to sort out spending and borrowing" could have been justified as a response to the problems in the economy, just about.
Unfortunately, her ideas were just too far out there. It's easy to imagine Charlie Croker responding with a comment about bloody doors. And delaying OBR commentary didn't help.
More generally, none of them can speak persuasively. Go on, name someone in this cabinet who can go on a tricky news show and engage with the questions, let alone in a way that reassures. That's a fairly big gap in a government team.
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
It's amazing how the free market works: if there is tremendous demand for lithium and nickel, people will find ways of producing it.
The market is subordinate to the laws of physics.
I’d expect battery recycling to be a huge part of the future.
Planning and NIMBYism is a really tricky political problem. There are no answers that are both universally popular and effective. That’s just a sad fact of life in a country that is both densely populated with biodiversity and green space at a premium in its most economically active regions, and stagnating due to lack of infrastructure and investment.
You’ll never stop NIMBYs and if you ignore them you won’t win elections, and in many cases they have a point. What’s good for the country is often not good for a local community.
What would I do if I were in government? I think there’s something to be said for concentrating development as much as possible: massive industrialisation, house building, infrastructure building in a small number of very large, intensive urbanised areas including proper new towns, and leave the rest alone.
Yes, that ought to work in principle with well-built high-density housing as on the Continent, though it would need good train connections too as not everyone will work there - maybe along the HS2 route. But it's the kind of megaproject that goes over budget and takes 20 years. In the meantime it does need leadership to get sensible brownfield projects through. Locally we have a project to build inexpensive town-centre housing on part of a large car park (replacing the spaces by building a multi-storey car park at the edge). You'd think it couldn't be less controversial - what could be more brownfield, with zero net loss of parking space? - but the opposition are vigorously campaigning on "Save our car park!"
I am very envious of the continental Europeans, particularly the French, with their multi level underground car parks in most town centres, with colour coded levels.
So much better use of urban space than surface car parks or ugly multi-storeys
The private car - in cities and towns - will be largely gone in 10-20 years. Replaced by ebikes and self drive e-cars. And maybe autonomous drone taxis for the rich
It will be as big a transition in urbanism as the move from horse to internal combustion at the end of the 19th century, when an entire ecosystem - mews, stables, ostlers, blacksmiths, tanners, pure finders, carriage makers - suddenly became obsolete. And European cities had to adapt to the car and the bus
It will free up a lot of space - all those car parks - and streets will be vastly nicer, cleaner, quieter. It’s one reason to be seriously optimistic about the future despite the present
However I do wonder how cities built around the car - eg in much of the USA - will evolve. Difficult
Your notion that the private car is on its way out in towns is one of the oddest and most bizarre thoughts that you have.
For almost all the developed world getting your own private transportation is one of the smartest and most liberating decisions people can make which is why the private car makes up over 80% of all personal transportation.
Ebikes and Uber may be useful in inner city London, but towns are not the same.
Private cars will still dominate in 10-20 years as there is absolutely nothing better or more liberating to use.
There's as much chance of private cars disappearing as there is Keir Starmer winning the next election ... then at the door of Downing Street revealing that he is an alien, who personally developed Covid in a lab, and released it deliberately to aid his species colonisation of this planet, and that he will be appointing his alien accomplice, Jacob Rees Mogg, as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
You seem to think that driving and using other modes are mutually exclusive.
I drive to work. I am just about to drive to the supermarket. Yesterday I used the train to meet up with some friends for a beery day out. Later this afternoon I have my Covid booster. I would quite like to be able to get a bus, as there is a good pub over the road from the vaccination hub, however I can't as there aren't any on Sundays. It really is not within casual walking distance so I am going to have to drive and limit myself to one pint of something low-gravity.
The problem with driving round towns is it is slow and expensive, due to traffic, urban fuel consumption rates and parking charges. Much better people being able to use public transport for some journeys, you might reduce the number of cars on the road (some couples may be able to run one car if one person can get to work by PT) but you would certainly reduce miles done.
Quite the opposite, I think driving and other modes of transport can be quite complementary at times.
You can use private transportation much or most of the time, while still having the option to use alternative transportation where its more appropriate, leaving your car at home. There's nothing wrong with that.
For private transport to disappear, as Leon advocates, would require things to be more exclusive. He seems to think that Uber is good, so therefore cars will vanish. Uber may be good for him, or good for people who want to drink and don't want anyone to have to be designated driver, but most of the time your own vehicle is better.
You're not suddenly going to start getting an Uber to work every day, while you can for a beery day out. Though for someone as perpetually half-cut as our Leon, perhaps public transport is a safer option.
Cars. Finished. Gone. It’s coming!
BRACE!
Horse. Cart.
Nosebag.
Nosebag. Not Airbag. Is that enough to get me a ban 🤭
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
The Tesla semi hasn’t been delayed because of any problem with the energy density or range of the vehicle. But because they use a shed ton of battery cells and there’s a global shortage of cells, it’s taking time to ramp up the supply but slowly but surely we’re getting there.
According to that story the Tesla Semi has a 500 mile range. Not too shabby if replicable in the real world.
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
The odd thing is, it’s almost the opposite to the Cuban missile crisis in terms of risk vs public perception.
Back then, the risk was lower, but public fear was greater.
Now, the risk is greater, yet public perception of the risk (of nuclear annihilation) is far less.
There’s a PHD thesis, for some future academic, should we survive this.
The risk was higher in the Cuban Missile Crisis. There were people on both sides who thought it was inevitable that it would go to a full strategic nuclear war, and still pushed ahead. Castro actually was upset that the Russians didn’t go for it…
It is worse than that, it is the government with the least firm support in parliament, ever, by an order of magnitude. There are only around 50-60 MPs committed to the direction Truss wants to go.
She is going to have to go or call an election fairly soon.
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
What is your take on the Kremlin’s announcement tonight?
For what it's worth, kid who works at my local coffee shop was bragging about the great mileage he got on his Prius, driving last weekend from Seattle to Portland & back.
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
Was that before or after @eadric had bravely hidden himself away Penarth?
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
It doesn't annoy and it's a good question to ask, even if I suspect Musk has an agenda.
It's a good question to ask, but Musk is hardly the person best placed to answer it, so he need not stay up all night wrestling with the problem based on only public information, no experience in the field and no personal or professional connections with the main players...
You think the richest man in the world, the owner of Starlink, who gave Starlink to Ukraine, thereby helping them win the war - does not have pretty good connections with the main players?
He's also very invested in the economy and his business model is heavily dependent on the fate of global energy policy. Perhaps he's seen some number that frighten him.
Could hydrogen electric cars end up as the future rather than battery electric cars?
No. Next question.
Cars, no. Other vehicles? Perhaps.
Hydrogen is a store of energy, not a source. Same as a battery. And a very inefficient one at that. It’s also technically more challenging to store and transport. So overall it’s far more expensive. But it has good energy density. But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles. Not there yet for shipping and aviation, but I suspect we’ll be looking at a biofuel solution for those.
"But the energy density of lithium ion batteries is already good enough for land vehicles."
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
The Tesla semi hasn’t been delayed because of any problem with the energy density or range of the vehicle. But because they use a shed ton of battery cells and there’s a global shortage of cells, it’s taking time to ramp up the supply but slowly but surely we’re getting there.
According to that story the Tesla Semi has a 500 mile range. Not too shabby if replicable in the real world.
Let’s see how the launched product really goes but there were a lot of claims about improved acceleration reducing journey times and a real focus on reducing maintenance costs. Stronger windscreens and braking via battery regen meaning brake pads don’t fail.
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Sturgeon made a mistake - she didn't need to be hostile. A bit of condescension or even pity would have been more apposite.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
A 1 in 6 chance that human civilisation is about to be extinguished
"Many people have asked me what I think the odds are of an imminent major US-Russia nuclear war. My current estimate is about the same as losing in Russian roulette: one in six. The goal of this post is to explain how I arrived at this estimate. Please forgive its cold and analytic nature despite the emotionally charged topic; I'm trying not to be biased by hopes, fears or wishful thinking. "
its hard to be precise with these things but the odds feel to me about right , at this lebvel of probability we really need to step back and do what we can at our end even if it means Putin gets away with it
And now you will get the Combined Sofa Militia of PB, led by General @TSE and Corporal @BartholomewRoberts calling you a "fucking appeaser"
It's got nothing to do with appeasement, it's playing the long game. If the west feels it has to do something to stop nuclear war (or reduce it from 1/6 back to 1/1000 or whatever) then what should it do?
It could (mostly the US) stop providing arms to Ukraine, but that won't stop Ukraine fighting and Ukraine could still buy on cash and carry basis arms and equipment. There are (I suspect) plenty of private individuals giving donations to Ukraine to allow them to continue fighting (albeit on a reduced basis) for the foreseeable future. You could go further, and IMPOSE SANCTIONS on Ukraine, to prevent this, but the insanity of this position I almost don't want to state (it is, of course, setting a precedent that a defending country should be sanctioned to allow it to lose faster). So stopping gifting supplies to Ukraine isn't actually going to help. It'll actually prolong the war.
The third option is that the US and the west collectively, bully Ukraine to surrender, possibly, if necessary, by declaring war on them. Again, the insanity of this position should be self evident. Perhaps, however, this won't be necessary and instead the West and Russia can beat Ukraine and Zelensky simply surrenders.
Russia and Putin (and crucially other nuclear states) then learn a valuable lesson - they can bully other countries to accept annexation by the threat of nuclear war. The only way to stop this is to have nuclear weapons yourself (and even then). So at the moment I can count the nuclear armed states on both hands (one hand officially..... but we'll ignore Israel, India and Pakistan). If the above is seen to be an acceptable way of doing 21st Century diplomacy, there is going to be a mad scramble to obtain nukes. Japan, Germany, Iran, North Korea... hell, any modern largish country is going to try.
Now, call me old fashioned, but a world were only 8 states have nukes, and there is a general agreement not to use them is far more likely to see the year 2100 than a world where 30 countries have nukes, and nuclear blackmail is seen as reasonable.
War. War never changes. Fallout was supposed to be dark humour look at a post-nuclear world. It was not supposed to be a documentary.
Quite.
If waving his Big! Weapons! gets Putin out of his current hole, everyone will want them.
Wonder what the “realists” would make of Ukraine announcing that since the West had washed their hands of the guarantees made when they gave up nuclear weapons (by stopping support for the war), they will renounces the NPT?
I’m sure they will scream and scream. But that is quite likely to happen.
Every country with a nuclear reactor has a pile of old fuel rods. And that is all they need.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Their hybrid technology is getting better, we hired a Yaris hybrid in Scotland and it did over 70 mpg even on highway driving. Toyota have probably calculated that there is going to be an enormous market for that particularly in the parts of the world where the infrastructure for EV's doesn't exist.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
What is your take on the Kremlin’s announcement tonight?
Mildly encouraging. Russia might be blinking. But let's not get carried away: I've read analysts saying Putin likes to do this - delay his reactions, confuse the enemy, then escalate
If another week goes by and Russia has not done something dramatic then I will start to breathe easier. Either Putin hasn't got the cullions, or his generals and aides are sitting on him. They don't want to die for Ukraine
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
What is your take on the Kremlin’s announcement tonight?
Mildly encouraging. Russia might be blinking. But let's not get carried away: I've read analysts saying Putin likes to do this - delay his reactions, confuse the enemy, then escalate
If another week goes by and Russia has not done something dramatic then I will start to breathe easier. Either Putin hasn't got the cullions, or his generals and aides are sitting on him. They don't want to die for Ukraine
Yeah, Russia has this thing where they deny they are going to do something, then do it; in order to confuse people.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
Their hybrid technology is getting better, we hired a Yaris hybrid in Scotland and it did over 70 mpg even on highway driving. Toyota have probably calculated that there is going to be an enormous market for that particularly in the parts of the world where the infrastructure for EV's doesn't exist.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
Our 5 year old Yaris hybrid is not quite as good, averaging around 60 mpg, but I’ve been told the newer ones are better, so that fits. They are also good on wear and tear, brakes etc last forever.
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
What is your take on the Kremlin’s announcement tonight?
Mildly encouraging. Russia might be blinking. But let's not get carried away: I've read analysts saying Putin likes to do this - delay his reactions, confuse the enemy, then escalate
If another week goes by and Russia has not done something dramatic then I will start to breathe easier. Either Putin hasn't got the cullions, or his generals and aides are sitting on him. They don't want to die for Ukraine
Yeah, Russia has this thing where they deny they are going to do something, then do it; in order to confuse people.
That is fair. “We won’t invade” for example. But this is still miles better than “we have all means at our disposal”.
Prior to the invasion there was plenty in their behaviour that revealed the lie. The mass of troops on the border! With this I am not aware of anything which indicates they are lying.
In regards to Sturgeon's mild statement of her opinion on the Conservative party: is the UK political media alright in the head? Do they need help? Are the conscious of what they are doing?
Sturgeon made a mistake - she didn't need to be hostile. A bit of condescension or even pity would have been more apposite.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
The SNP have got wall to wall coverage on how much they hate the Tories.
Know how many Tory votes they need? Zero. Know how many Labour votes they need? As many as they can get.
This is the least mistakey thing in the history of non mistakes ever.
@ByronTau France's national railway SNCF tried to help California build its high speed rail project but ended up quitting, saying "they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional."
It has been alleged that Musk proposed his brain-dead Hyperloop idea to kill California's high-speed rail project. There had to be some ulterior motive behind the madness.
The high speed rail project is trying to kill itself, because of the same reasons that the Senate Launch System exists.
In America, mega project government spending is about (in order of priority)
1) giving money to the right companies 2) who then employ a pyramid of other, right companies 3) this pyramid of companies remembers who their friends are and donates to the political campaigns of the… 4) … coalition of politicians that voted the money for the project : 9,675) the actual professed aim of the project.
The aim of the California high speed rail project is not really to build high speed rail on California.
Comments
Fair amount of that. Usually in a vox pop from a market or something.
And its posher, virtue signalling, faux intellectual equivalent - it was about "sovereignty".
Britain is not significantly poorer because of Brexit. We are significantly poorer because we have just been though a plague, which has left us with terrible debts, and because Europe is now at war which is causing renewed recession and potential apocalypse
Brexit is utterly trivial compared to all this
Imminent armageddon notwithstanding (apparently), we've had some real voting today in the Lower Saxony election. As I previewed last evening, it looked as though the Greens and AfD were going to move forward at the expense of the two governing coalition parties, the CDU and SPD, with the FDP right on the cusp of survival.
Early days with just two of the eighty seven polling districts but the exit poll projection as follows:
SPD: 33.2% (-3.7)
CDU: 28.1% (-5.5)
Greens: 14.5% (+5.8)
Alternative: 11.2% (+5.0)
FDP: 4.9% (-2.6)
Linke: 2.6% (-2.0)
In terms of seat projection:
SPD 52, CDU 44, Greens 22, Alternative 17
It looks as though the FDP will just miss the cut but that's NOT certain. The first casualty of the night is the CDU leader and Deputy President Bernd Althusmann and it's a far from ringing endorsement for the party which has been edging back towards 30% in the national polls and does lead the Greens and SPD.
It's not that bad a result for the SPD and it's now possible for their leader Stephan Weil to renew a coalition with the Greens as they would have a clear majority in the Landtag.
The Greens will be happy with a decent advance as will AfD while for the FDP the alarm bells will be ringing.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that people who use the shorthand "sovereignty" aren't actually romanticist for WW2 but have legitimate arguments?
Unwell again?
The Kremlin says it is “completely incorrect” to suggest that Russia could retaliate for the Crimea bridge attack by using nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1579177394774355969
@francis_scarr
·
6m
It took 38 hours for Vladimir Putin to comment on the Crimean bridge explosion
I guess that’s a neat irony. Hopefully they will end up moaning about all the “straight Brexit bananas”
Bolivia's ambassador to Tehran: "Our government condemns the recent riots in Iran which are orchestrated by the British and American Zionists. We are sure all problems will be resolved through solidarity and the wisdom of the dear Leader of Iran."
https://twitter.com/IranIntl_En/status/1579098229240889344
The more detailed polling also suggests the local SPD Minister President is very popular and this has been a big factor.
I actually think Ukrainian authorities are very concerned by Musk's intervention, as they think he's a big influencer, leading to a riposte by Zelensky himself.
But life will go on. We've been a relatively prosperous country since at least the middle ages and overall it wont make an utterly massive difference in the large scale of things. But there will be numerous annoyances and ridiculous outcomes (e.g. Horizon research) and I am sad about it all.
I doubt we will rejoin in my lifetime but who knows.
I wouldn't personally support that anyway until the EU sorts out where it really stands on the single currency.
ETA: Well, our 'zionists' anyway. Still up there with the American 'zionists' punching above their weight on the world stage
A quick scroll of his twitter does not seem to indicate he has mentioned Iran lately.
Not realising that he is an important player is a failure to understand modern politics. A lot of it is done on social media, not by important men having important secret meetings
Whether you approve of musk is a different question. Opinions understandably differ. He can be a total prick
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/09/liz-truss-on-verge-of-major-u-turn-on-real-terms-benefits-cut
I also learned some weeks ago - from reading PB - that Jake Rees is Business Secretary.
Truss is completely crackers. QED.
I think plenty will now oppose her for the sake of it for anything.
She'd have got far more of her agenda through had she had a scintilla of magnanimity and the first vaguest clue about politics.
She could have sounded them out first, taken some baby steps or something.
"According to Mr Bastrykin, investigators have established that the truck which they say blew up travelled through Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia and Krasnodar Territory."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63195504
No mention of Turkey, did the truck fly from Bulgaria to Georgia?
Tell that to long-distance truckers (yes, including the long-delayed Tesla Semi). Or JCB, for that matter.
It is quite bizarre. She spent months scrupulously saying exactly what was needed to win the membership. And precisely no time at all getting her MP's on side.
The current President, Luis Arce, was the Finance Minister in the Morales Presidency which was strongly pro-Cuba and pro-Venezuela and anti-Washington.
This is well shown by the immense lack of enthusiasm about remaining (for what other reason could the campaign have been such quotidien rubbish), and the fact that despite running a populist campaign leave could only get just above half the vote.
The correct answer was and is a plan in which the first step is leaving the political structures but joining EEA/EFTA. This also required statecraft as it would have given most of the MPs most of what they wanted but would have failed the Daily Mail/populist test.
Parliament's epic fail there will haunt them.
Will Labour have the courage to put a Brexit review with all options except rejoin on the table? I hope so.
Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, plans to invest $70 billion in electrified vehicles over the next nine years. Half of that will be for all-electric battery ones. While it’s a substantial investment in EVs, it’s smaller than some competitors’ plans, and not as much as some would like given Toyota’s global footprint.
Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles.
He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.
“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”
Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.
The Tesla semi hasn’t been delayed because of any problem with the energy density or range of the vehicle. But because they use a shed ton of battery cells and there’s a global shortage of cells, it’s taking time to ramp up the supply but slowly but surely we’re getting there.
has a radical agenda. So strike while the iron is hot and all that. Even the "here are the tax cuts, trust us to sort out spending and borrowing" could have been justified as a response to the problems in the economy, just about.
Unfortunately, her ideas were just too far out there. It's easy to imagine Charlie Croker responding with a comment about bloody doors. And delaying OBR commentary didn't help.
More generally, none of them can speak persuasively. Go on, name someone in this cabinet who can go on a tricky news show and engage with the questions, let
alone in a way that reassures. That's a fairly big gap in a government team.
This is from late February 2020. By a poster called @eadric
"@eadric said:
The Economist expects 25% to 70% of people to catch it, in an infected country, within 12 months of the first outbreak.
That’s a wide spread but let’s crunch the numbers at either end.
If the mortality rate is like China ex-Hubei (if we trust that data) that’s a rate of 0.6% And if the infection rate is just 25% that’s about 95,000 UK deaths. Really quite unpleasant, but not apocalyptic. The NHS should stagger through. But this requires intense and draconian quarantine, like China. That’s best case scenario, according to The Economist.
If the mortality rate is in the officially anticipated 1% range, and the infection rate is more like 40%, that’s about 260,000 UK deaths. Edging towards hellish. I can’t imagine how the NHS would deal with that. But maybe we bumble through. It would be like wartime for sure. That’s the mid range forecast.
If the mortality rate is the Wuhan rate of 4%, and the infection rate is 70% (ie the reasonable worst case scenariio) that is 2 MILLION deaths. In one year. Society could, maybe would, break down"
He's not here to boast for himself , but I submit that this is an incredible piece of prognostication. Quite quite astounding. This is extremely early in the pandemic. We had no idea what was really coming, whether there would be a vaccine (many said no), whether we would lockdown (many said No), and so on
And his central projection? 260,000 UK deaths
As of now we have 191,000
That's just brilliant. It just is. Sure you could say his two million prediction was mad, but that was a worst case scenario, and remember this is FEBRUARY 2020, when the rest of you were wanking on about care home staff shortages (check the thread)
I thought I was good with The Necklace, but hats off. That wins
I suggest that, if ever this @eadric fellow comes back on the site (we must pray he does) take heed if he warns about nuclear war
She is going to have to go or call an election fairly soon.
Also notice how it is British and American not American and British.
We can all nod in sorrow at the plight of the Conservative Party and be sympathetic at its impending shellacking (copyright @TSE) at the next election....
In private and internally we can of course all be laughing and getting in the popcorn.
If waving his Big! Weapons! gets Putin out of his current hole, everyone will want them.
Wonder what the “realists” would make of Ukraine announcing that since the West had washed their hands of the guarantees made when they gave up nuclear weapons (by stopping support for the war), they will renounces the NPT?
I’m sure they will scream and scream. But that is quite likely to happen.
Every country with a nuclear reactor has a pile of old fuel rods. And that is all they need.
A friend got a Jaguar EV at work and it was an absolute disaster. It couldn't manage a 140 mile drive without running out of battery. Not fit for purpose. Toyota have probably decided that they shouldn't rush EV's to the market without mastering the technology.
If another week goes by and Russia has not done something dramatic then I will start to breathe easier. Either Putin hasn't got the cullions, or his generals and aides are sitting on him. They don't want to die for Ukraine
Prior to the invasion there was plenty in their behaviour that revealed the lie. The mass of troops on the border! With this I am not aware of anything which indicates they are lying.
Know how many Tory votes they need? Zero.
Know how many Labour votes they need? As many as they can get.
This is the least mistakey thing in the history of non mistakes ever.
In America, mega project government spending is about (in order of priority)
1) giving money to the right companies
2) who then employ a pyramid of other, right companies
3) this pyramid of companies remembers who their friends are and donates to the political campaigns of the…
4) … coalition of politicians that voted the money for the project
:
9,675) the actual professed aim of the project.
The aim of the California high speed rail project is not really to build high speed rail on California.