If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
Yes. For sure. If new data comes in, form new opinions
If Putin does nothing spectacular in reaction to the Kerch Bridge explosion, then that means he is either all gong and no dinner, or he has been squished by his generals/aides, who do not want to die for Kyiv
Either of these is highly encouraging. But I still - on balance - expect him to respond, in some form. The next week or two will tell us
I agree the Kerch Bridge is totemic, and the most important of his "red lines" to date
I just hope that the Langeled pipeline is well guarded. If indeed it is possible to guard 725miles of undersea gas pipe in any meaningful way.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
Yes. For sure. If new data comes in, form new opinions
If Putin does nothing spectacular in reaction to the Kerch Bridge explosion, then that means he is either all gong and no dinner, or he has been squished by his generals/aides, who do not want to die for Kyiv
Either of these is highly encouraging. But I still - on balance - expect him to respond, in some form. The next week or two will tell us
I agree the Kerch Bridge is totemic, and the most important of his "red lines" to date
iirc Putin always takes his time before responding to stuff. The fact that he has not hit the nuke button after 48 hours means little.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
But putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do. Isn't it? That's how you bet
Look how much eternal shining glory now accrues to @eadric with his February 2020 prediction of 260,000 deaths from Covid total. And it now stands at 191,000. And we were just three weeks into the pandemic and no one knew anything. Except him
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
There already have been rises though. Inflation is far higher than the OBR had forecast, which aids long-term spending plans.
Fiscal drag is a significant tax rise, and below-inflation pay rises (or even just avoiding above-inflation pay-rises) is a significant real terms spending cut. Combine the two and the Exchequer should have many billions more than expected in the prior OBR reports.
What it won't have though, is much room for further giveaways closer to the election.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Sorry. But you said exactly that:
"Coronavirus will be a bad season of flu, at worst"
In general taunting people with poor predictions is a little juvenile, but @IshmaelZ linked to that PB February 2020 thread, and I couldn't resist. Soz Boz
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Yes, normalcy bias is a notable feature of Bart's posts.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
But putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do. Isn't it? That's how you bet
Look how much eternal shining glory now accrues to @eadric with his February 2020 prediction of 260,000 deaths from Covid total. And it now stands at 191,000. And we were just three weeks into the pandemic and no one knew anything. Except him
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Predicting £260k deaths (or 45°C peak temperatures) is something we can test against the outcome.
Those predictions of 15%, 40% or 0.4% of a tactical nuke... If one is used, who was right? If one isn't used, who was right?
A: They were all right. In either case.
But yes, putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
They are holding Putin in office but not in power, as the fall guy when Russian troops get POW'd in huge numbers in Kherson. The Russian army being bussed back to the border sans weapons will require a head to roll.
The Russian people will be satisfied with Putin's. The revolution will fizzle out with him. The rest of the military and the oligarch's can stay in place without the barricades being erected.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Sorry. But you said exactly that:
"Coronavirus will be a bad season of flu, at worst"
In general taunting people with poor predictions is a little juvenile, but @IshmaelZ linked to that PB February 2020 thread, and I couldn't resist. Soz Boz
I've just searched for that text, and Vanilla isn't finding it. So you may have made a mistake, but since I've changed username since then please don't link to it - feel free to PM me though and I'll fess up if I made a mistake but to say things like "at worst" isn't like me.
I don't like to rule out possibilities. Except for utterly insane suggestions like the death of the car in the next decade or two.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
It is a binary event. 0% or 100% it will happen.
True, but only a 0% or a 100% prediction can ever be wrong.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
But putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do. Isn't it? That's how you bet
Look how much eternal shining glory now accrues to @eadric with his February 2020 prediction of 260,000 deaths from Covid total. And it now stands at 191,000. And we were just three weeks into the pandemic and no one knew anything. Except him
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Predicting £260k deaths (or 45°C peak temperatures) is something we can test against the outcome.
Those predictions of 15%, 40% or 0.4% of a tactical nuke... If one is used, who was right? If one isn't used, who was right?
A: They were all right. In either case.
But yes, putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do.
Yes, it is a bit ridiculous, even decadent, even, perhaps, idiotic
But it is a way for numbers people to get a grip on anarchic reality, which I guess is why we do it
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
It is a binary event. 0% or 100% it will happen.
True, but only a 0% or a 100% prediction can ever be wrong.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Sorry. But you said exactly that:
"Coronavirus will be a bad season of flu, at worst"
In general taunting people with poor predictions is a little juvenile, but @IshmaelZ linked to that PB February 2020 thread, and I couldn't resist. Soz Boz
I've just searched for that text, and Vanilla isn't finding it. So you may have made a mistake, but since I've changed username since then please don't link to it - feel free to PM me though and I'll fess up if I made a mistake but to say things like "at worst" isn't like me.
I don't like to rule out possibilities. Except for utterly insane suggestions like the death of the car in the next decade or two.
I've absolutely no desire to dox you, mate. For obvious reasons
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
Time to run out my stupendous January 1st set of predictions for 2022 again:
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
I remember the good old days, when a Tory Budget collapsed under the concocted media strain of a tax on hot pasties.
This one has collapsed on the basic fundamentals of whether it is still cutting taxes or not.
Can we assume with all the back-tracking, those earning over £150,000 are no longer winners? 2 weeks ago, the biggest tax cutting Budget for half a century. 2 weeks later, everybody is paying more tax.
How the fuck is Kwarteng still in Number 11? Although, I'll happily wait a few days and go for a two-fer with Number 10....
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
Time to run out my stupendous January 1st set of predictions for 2022 again:
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
Yay! You finally got it. Only took you 8 months but there is much rejoicing in heaven.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
Time to run out my stupendous January 1st set of predictions for 2022 again:
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
Roger is very, very proud of you.
I confess, I'm a bit disappointed not to get a perfect 0/10.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
Time to run out my stupendous January 1st set of predictions for 2022 again:
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
1 is definitely in with a chance imho (if we ignore the 'still' word).
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
Surely if the March budget cannot be passed a new administration is inevitable. That may or may not require a GE at that point.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
I remember the good old days, when a Tory Budget collapsed under the concocted media strain of a tax on hot pasties.
This one has collapsed on the basic fundamentals of whether it is still cutting taxes or not.
Can we assume with all the back-tracking, those earning over £150,000 are no longer winners? 2 weeks ago, the biggest tax cutting Budget for half a century. 2 weeks later, everybody is paying more tax.
How the fuck is Kwarteng still in Number 11? Although, I'll happily wait a few days and go for a two-fer with Number 10....
It was only a "tax rise" for anyone on extremely dodgy maths by including some of the tax rises that had already been made but excluding tax cuts or similar that had already been made from the calculations.
Fiscal drag from frozen thresholds was a tax rise that had already been made, by Sunak. With NI cut, it was a tax-cutting budget for working people that Kwasi did, unless you include decisions already made and baked in by Sunak.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
Time to run out my stupendous January 1st set of predictions for 2022 again:
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
1 is definitely in with a chance imho (if we ignore the 'still' word).
5 has happened has it not?
Has it? I missed that. Thought it was still imminent.
I remember the good old days, when a Tory Budget collapsed under the concocted media strain of a tax on hot pasties.
This one has collapsed on the basic fundamentals of whether it is still cutting taxes or not.
Can we assume with all the back-tracking, those earning over £150,000 are no longer winners? 2 weeks ago, the biggest tax cutting Budget for half a century. 2 weeks later, everybody is paying more tax.
How the fuck is Kwarteng still in Number 11? Although, I'll happily wait a few days and go for a two-fer with Number 10....
It was only a "tax rise" for anyone on extremely dodgy maths by including some of the tax rises that had already been made but excluding tax cuts or similar that had already been made from the calculations.
Fiscal drag from frozen thresholds was a tax rise that had already been made, by Sunak. With NI cut, it was a tax-cutting budget for working people that Kwasi did, unless you include decisions already made and baked in by Sunak.
Nothing was 'baked in'. All was open to be changed.
I have no idea of the probability of Putin using a tactical nuke.
However, I would place the odds of an attention-seeking drunkard using PB to speculate wildly on the use of a tactical nuke at precisely 100%
Something I have really noticed in the last three or four days. Previously it was only people on PB speculating on nukes. Now, my friends down the pub are doing it (unprompted by me), as are my family - if that's reflective of the wider world, then my guess is a lot of people up and down the country have been talking about it this weekend (perhaps since Biden's "apocalypse" comments).
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
Surely if the March budget cannot be passed a new administration is inevitable. That may or may not require a GE at that point.
My guess is that a budget would only pass once it had the unpopular bits amended out of it. So, sans unpopular new taxes and spending cuts.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
Yes. For sure. If new data comes in, form new opinions
If Putin does nothing spectacular in reaction to the Kerch Bridge explosion, then that means he is either all gong and no dinner, or he has been squished by his generals/aides, who do not want to die for Kyiv
Either of these is highly encouraging. But I still - on balance - expect him to respond, in some form. The next week or two will tell us
I agree the Kerch Bridge is totemic, and the most important of his "red lines" to date
iirc Putin always takes his time before responding to stuff. The fact that he has not hit the nuke button after 48 hours means little.
Security council meeting tomorrow.
Even if he wanted to he would need to move tactical nukes into position. And the US seem pretty confident they’d be aware of any movement was happening.
I remember the good old days, when a Tory Budget collapsed under the concocted media strain of a tax on hot pasties.
This one has collapsed on the basic fundamentals of whether it is still cutting taxes or not.
Can we assume with all the back-tracking, those earning over £150,000 are no longer winners? 2 weeks ago, the biggest tax cutting Budget for half a century. 2 weeks later, everybody is paying more tax.
How the fuck is Kwarteng still in Number 11? Although, I'll happily wait a few days and go for a two-fer with Number 10....
It was only a "tax rise" for anyone on extremely dodgy maths by including some of the tax rises that had already been made but excluding tax cuts or similar that had already been made from the calculations.
Fiscal drag from frozen thresholds was a tax rise that had already been made, by Sunak. With NI cut, it was a tax-cutting budget for working people that Kwasi did, unless you include decisions already made and baked in by Sunak.
Nothing was 'baked in'. All was open to be changed.
Of course, and anything changed would be a cut or a rise, that's the way these things work.
Kwasi proposed returning the top rate of Income Tax to that which Blair had his entire time in office, and Brown had for all but his final month. But since Kwasi was announcing a change, that was a tax cut, even if it was just cutting back to what it used to be.
A think tank incorporated some of Sunak's tax rises in with Kwasi's budget in order to come out at a conclusion that suited themselves. Sunak had already made those tax rises, and if Kwasi changed it, it would have been a tax cut by Kwasi. Keeping the rates you inherit isn't a tax rise by you.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
Surely if the March budget cannot be passed a new administration is inevitable. That may or may not require a GE at that point.
My guess is that a budget would only pass once it had the unpopular bits amended out of it. So, sans unpopular new taxes and spending cuts.
I am not sure it will pass with unsustainable borrowing.
The eternal triangle: tax, spending, borrowing, will have to be, er, squared.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
We'll get through the immediate impasse: if there's no majority to change anything, all the tax cuts fall and thus no measures are needed to cover them either.
Whether or not the Government can keep going for another two years without doing anything contentious - achieving nothing other than saving Tory MPs from collecting their P45s - remains to be seen.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
Neither party would even seek such a mandate.
Both parties for as many elections as I can remember has campaigned on the basis of a fully funded spending plan, whether such plans were entirely credible or not. This has consequently meant that they've had the authority to take unpopular steps to balance the budget, and stave off bankruptcy, once in office.
The current government seems to be the first government that is entirely incapable of taking steps to balance the budget, because it lacks the authority to do so. For all that people can be cynical about previous governments, I believe that this is a qualitative change that puts the country at material risk of not being able to finance itself.
I don't think it will. No one cares about this shit
We are facing the end of the world. AND a collapsing government and terrible recession and all the rest
A foreign secretary spends money on foreign travel? No
Also Liz Truss comes after Boris Johnson. Truss is lamentable, but I don't think anyone regards her as more personally indulgent or profligate than Boris and his spendy young wife
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
I don't think it will. No one cares about this shit
We are facing the end of the world. AND a collapsing government and terrible recession and all the rest
A foreign secretary spends money on foreign travel? No
Also Liz Truss comes after Boris Johnson. Truss is lamentable, but I don't think anyone regards her as more personally indulgent or profligate than Boris and his spendy young wife
I reckon there's a 55% chance it will get more airtime if Truss starts pushing for cuts. ;-)
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
They are holding Putin in office but not in power, as the fall guy when Russian troops get POW'd in huge numbers in Kherson. The Russian army being bussed back to the border sans weapons will require a head to roll.
The Russian people will be satisfied with Putin's. The revolution will fizzle out with him. The rest of the military and the oligarch's can stay in place without the barricades being erected.
Yes, this is the end game. People ask what we can offer Russia to get them to stand down. What we offer them is a clean slate under a new leader. No matter what dodgy business dealings or KGB mischief they have been involved in, we allow them to back to 2013. No more sanctions, new trade deals with the West, a new discussion forum, international legitimacy. The whole Ukraine disaster gets blamed on Putin.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
I fear that a possible scenario now is that there is no Parliamentary majority for any of the possible unpopular steps that would be necessary to balance the budget. Sounds like there is no majority for welfare cuts, no majority for spending cuts, no majority for new taxes. There probably isn't a majority for defaulting on our debts either, but it reminds me of the stasis of the 2019 Parliament, which was unable to form a majority for a coherent resolution to the situation.
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
Neither party would even seek such a mandate.
Both parties for as many elections as I can remember has campaigned on the basis of a fully funded spending plan, whether such plans were entirely credible or not. This has consequently meant that they've had the authority to take unpopular steps to balance the budget, and stave off bankruptcy, once in office.
The current government seems to be the first government that is entirely incapable of taking steps to balance the budget, because it lacks the authority to do so. For all that people can be cynical about previous governments, I believe that this is a qualitative change that puts the country at material risk of not being able to finance itself.
That's true, but both parties now support the policy mix that has got them here. At a stretch, Labour may lie and say that some tax on billionaires will cover 7.5% of national income when it actually covers 0.75%, and then say they're sorry but they need to cover the rest with money from workers. This is about the only good scenario short of massive magnanimity from Russia.
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
Politics has decision moments which prove not to be decision moments. I guess we'll see lots of sleight of hand. I suggested one already - "WE WILL SPEND 3% of GDP ON DEFENCE!" - footnote: "in 2030". "We ARE DETERMINED TO REACH NET ZERO!" footnote "in 2030 is our ambition". But the spending gap will still be there, and the BoE will raise rates accordingly. The Government will then deplore the Bank's action, sadly noting that as they're independent it can't be stopped - and will then try to change the subject - deport 100 people to Rwanda, start a trade quarrel with Belgium, whatever.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
They are holding Putin in office but not in power, as the fall guy when Russian troops get POW'd in huge numbers in Kherson. The Russian army being bussed back to the border sans weapons will require a head to roll.
The Russian people will be satisfied with Putin's. The revolution will fizzle out with him. The rest of the military and the oligarch's can stay in place without the barricades being erected.
Yes, this is the end game. People ask what we can offer Russia to get them to stand down. What we offer them is a clean slate under a new leader. No matter what dodgy business dealings or KGB mischief they have been involved in, we allow them to back to 2013. No more sanctions, new trade deals with the West, a new discussion forum, international legitimacy. The whole Ukraine disaster gets blamed on Putin.
This - or nuclear Armageddon? Even for Russians it should be a no brainer.
However, their hydrocarbons industry and their IT sector will still be featuring in the Flint Knappers Monthly centrefold, receiving the Enormo-dildo...
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
The question people should be asking is how can the Tories win the next election. The idea that "nobody ever recovers from poll deficits of x% a year and a half out" is silly. It's easy to think of possible events that could increase the p of a Tory maj. Such as the sinking of a boatful of refugees in the Channel for instance - or the replacement of one of the non-white great officers of state with a white person who isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Tomorrow's meeting of the Russian security council is not an emergency meeting. The body meets weekly. The meeting was planned.
Dmitry Medvedev who is the vice-chairman of the SC has said that Russia's response can only be the direct destruction of the terrorists.
Medvedev might be Putin's successor (again) if Shoigu is considered not the right person.
Medvedev is a nut who owes his position and authority entirety to Putin. Shoigu was chosen as defence minister explicitly because he's from an ethnic minority and thus can have no hope of succession in what is, after all, a racist state.
Putin will (probably) still be at the helm at the end of all of this.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
In Russia you don't get to give input upwards. The higher ups tell you what to do and you ask how high. They are not civilized democrats like in the West.
Everyone can do their bit to defeat Putin — by only putting the heating on when it's really necessary. But hopefully we can do it ourselves, without being commanded by the government to do so.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
In Russia you don't get to give input upwards. The higher ups tell you what to do and you ask how high. They are not civilized democrats like in the West.
Yes - they are really uncouth and they blow their snot directly onto their sleeves. Then they mutter into their beards about Karl Marx as they fiddle with their orthodox crucifixes. And they go on about abolishing inheriting wealth. That's one of their main fixations, because they're so barbarian. And they shop at Aldi's and they have sex with animals. Russia isn't like where proper people live in Leatherhead or Sonning. Not one bit. Egalitarian maniacs hold the population captive and won't let them escape.
Meanwhile, returning to serious grownup land, what's with the NATO-British line about a possible Russian tactical nuclear "test"? Did that word just accidentally get through to the propaganda output without anybody noticing? That seems unlikely. So what is its function? You only need to "test" a weapon that's being developed or improved. A "test" is different from an "exercise".
The response to the Kerch bridge attack - meaning the part of the response that will be billed by senior Russian officials EITHER as "here's the response" OR as "we're not saying anything, but whoopsa-f*cking-daisy, hmmm?" - will probably be highly targeted. And it may have high surprise value and be far away from the front lines.
Note that there have been strikes against Russia accompanied with "whoopsadaisy, hmm?" psywar output (the Saki airbase, the pipeline), but as far as I am aware there have been none yet in this war by Russia.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
And your first take on it was that it would be contagious but benign
So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?
If Truss is keeping the tax cuts but can't get any spending cuts through then how is the OBR going to show debt falling as a % of GDP, even within 5 years?
The only long shot may be bringing forward increases in the pension age but would that get through the Commons?
Increase to 67 is in 2028 so if they bring that forward they aren't giving much notice.
That will make her even more unpopular. She’s backed herself into a corner because she promised unicorns for the Tory membership and now can’t make the maths add up . Nowhere else to go but cuts which won’t go down well with most of the public .
And. Which won't pass the HoC.
Either the tax cut package goes, or it has to be compensated for by rises elsewhere. Our lenders aren't keen to cover the deficit with more cheap borrowing, and there's no Parliamentary majority for significant cuts to any of the big spending departments.
Politics has decision moments which prove not to be decision moments. I guess we'll see lots of sleight of hand. I suggested one already - "WE WILL SPEND 3% of GDP ON DEFENCE!" - footnote: "in 2030". "We ARE DETERMINED TO REACH NET ZERO!" footnote "in 2030 is our ambition". But the spending gap will still be there, and the BoE will raise rates accordingly. The Government will then deplore the Bank's action, sadly noting that as they're independent it can't be stopped - and will then try to change the subject - deport 100 people to Rwanda, start a trade quarrel with Belgium, whatever.
Back to the original question. “So how is the OBR borrowing forecast going to stack up?” What faith should we have in the OBR forecast flagging up the government should not proceed with size of borrowing and income slashing? Who appoints the team who make up the OBR? Are they independent from government only in the sense the BBC and BoE are independent, in other words once a proper change of government happens these “independent teams” undergo personnel changes?
We presume Truss and Kwasi kept OBR out of it for the assessment would prove a blocker of the governments plans, but what is the track record of the OBR, have they ever produced reports thwarting government intentions so government didn’t proceed, or in fact produced what proved to be overly optimistic growth/deficit forecasts thus enabling government intentions?
"‘Relying on luck’: why does the UK have such limited gas storage? Jillian Ambrose Analysis: Closure of huge storage plant, misplaced optimism in fracking and demise of North Sea gas have all played a part"
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
In Russia you don't get to give input upwards. The higher ups tell you what to do and you ask how high. They are not civilized democrats like in the West.
Yes - they are really uncouth and they blow their snot directly onto their sleeves. Then they mutter into their beards about Karl Marx as they fiddle with their orthodox crucifixes. And they go on about abolishing inheriting wealth. That's one of their main fixations, because they're so barbarian. And they shop at Aldi's and they have sex with animals. Russia isn't like where proper people live in Leatherhead or Sonning. Not one bit. Egalitarian maniacs hold the population captive and won't let them escape.
Meanwhile, returning to serious grownup land, what's with the NATO-British line about a possible Russian tactical nuclear "test"? Did that word just accidentally get through to the propaganda output without anybody noticing? That seems unlikely. So what is its function? You only need to "test" a weapon that's being developed or improved. A "test" is different from an "exercise".
The response to the Kerch bridge attack - meaning the part of the response that will be billed by senior Russian officials EITHER as "here's the response" OR as "we're not saying anything, but whoopsa-f*cking-daisy, hmmm?" - will probably be highly targeted. And it may have high surprise value and be far away from the front lines.
Note that there have been strikes against Russia accompanied with "whoopsadaisy, hmm?" psywar output (the Saki airbase, the pipeline), but as far as I am aware there have been none yet in this war by Russia.
A light grey op may be what's coming,
Are Leatherhead and Sonning some of those fascist villages in the Home Counties.
And yes, countries that have been offered the chance at democracy and don't take it are uncouth. Full of savages that want to ban books like Nazis.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
We know your style well enough to know that they only turn into ‘predictions’ if anything remotely similar actually comes to pass, which even with the ‘remotely’ happens only very remotely, if at all. Otherwise it’s all ‘sharing concerns’ and a stream of your usual BS.
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
We know your style well enough to know that they only turn into ‘predictions’ if anything remotely similar actually comes to pass, which even with the ‘remotely’ happens only very remotely, if at all. Otherwise it’s all ‘sharing concerns’ and a stream of your usual BS.
You have been completely humiliated. I honestly advise you to stop
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
Or you predict every possible outcome
If you can refer me to a prediction you made re Covid, with actual numbers of deaths, in February 2020, that would be appreciated
But you can't, can you?
We know your style well enough to know that they only turn into ‘predictions’ if anything remotely similar actually comes to pass, which even with the ‘remotely’ happens only very remotely, if at all. Otherwise it’s all ‘sharing concerns’ and a stream of your usual BS.
You have been completely humiliated. I honestly advise you to stop
Not at all. Most long-standing PB’ers are very wise to your game.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
I don't think this is *obvious*?
Using nuclear weapons probably makes Russia's situation worse. Putin probably also thinks this, but we don't know. There's an argument that Putin might use them anyhow out of either idiocy or desperation. It's impossible to predict idiocy, and it's too early for desperation.
I suppose it might be obvious to someone who knows a lot about Russian politics, but I don't think we have anyone like that here?
People would send them their cryptocurrency (bit-coins or ethereum or whatever) and they'd promise you something like 15% API risk-free. They claimed they were doing various crypto lending and trading things with your money, and they were doing some of these things, but it seems like they were paying out early depositors from later depositors right from the beginning.
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
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
Is that likely to be on offer?
That's what we've got (with the exception of the NI protocol).
The issue isn't really tariffs. These are falling around the world. The problem is product standards. The single market aligns product standards. If you are outside the single market you have to prove that you comply before you can sell inside the EU. It is a massive non tariff barrier. It is the difficulty of being outside the regulatory space that is killing our exports because the cost of proving compliance are significantly higher than any applicable tarrif.
It's weird to go on YouTube and find a video from 10 years ago entitled "1938 stock departs Morden". The oldest trains on the London Underground today are the 1972 trains used on the Bakerloo Line. It's easy to forget these 1938 trains were still being used relatively recently.
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
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
Is that likely to be on offer?
That's what we've got (with the exception of the NI protocol).
The issue isn't really tariffs. These are falling around the world. The problem is product standards. The single market aligns product standards. If you are outside the single market you have to prove that you comply before you can sell inside the EU. It is a massive non tariff barrier. It is the difficulty of being outside the regulatory space that is killing our exports because the cost of proving compliance are significantly higher than any applicable tarrif.
Actually, the EU regulatory structure for most goods - the CE Mark - is incredibly low touch, and is almost entirely self certified. The US, and in particular the UL fire standards, are much more onerous.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
In Russia you don't get to give input upwards. The higher ups tell you what to do and you ask how high. They are not civilized democrats like in the West.
Yes - they are really uncouth and they blow their snot directly onto their sleeves. Then they mutter into their beards about Karl Marx as they fiddle with their orthodox crucifixes. And they go on about abolishing inheriting wealth. That's one of their main fixations, because they're so barbarian. And they shop at Aldi's and they have sex with animals. Russia isn't like where proper people live in Leatherhead or Sonning. Not one bit. Egalitarian maniacs hold the population captive and won't let them escape…
I was at Newmarket on Saturday and picked a winner (Run For Oscar in the Cesarewitch since you ask). Couldn’t pick my nose in any of the other races. Nevertheless it appears from the posturings of Leon and others on here that I should be considered an oracle for horseracing and all other topics as well. Please stay tuned and I will enlighten you all as to your future.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
Looking back at that early Covid thread, you dismissed coronavirus as, at worst, "a bad season of flu"
Probably, I said it would probably be that. I never said AFAIK "at worst" that, I just think the worst case scenarios tend to be very, very overexaggerated.
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Only about 1 in 250 times though
Sure, of course, but many assignments of 0.4% probability should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than say assignments of 4% or 40%. Looking back, perhaps people might decide 0.04% or 4% would have been better guesses. For starters there is often the assumption of a normal distribution which can be drawn from thin air.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
No desire at all. But we will respond proportionately if pushed. Tell that to your master in Moscow.
In Russia you don't get to give input upwards. The higher ups tell you what to do and you ask how high. They are not civilized democrats like in the West.
Yes - they are really uncouth and they blow their snot directly onto their sleeves. Then they mutter into their beards about Karl Marx as they fiddle with their orthodox crucifixes. And they go on about abolishing inheriting wealth. That's one of their main fixations, because they're so barbarian. And they shop at Aldi's and they have sex with animals. Russia isn't like where proper people live in Leatherhead or Sonning. Not one bit. Egalitarian maniacs hold the population captive and won't let them escape…
Shit. The truly alarming thing on Strictly is what I feared most: past criticism by Shirley Ballas provides no immunity . This judge is Satanic
If the Ballas runs riot in the UK this autumn we will be back to square one. They won’t be able to tweak any of the routines in time. People will get roasted again who’ve already had it. People not even competing on Strictly this will also get it. Hopefully they will only get mild/moderate cases, but we don’t know that yet, for sure.
I don’t want to come over all Black Rook but this is ominous. To me it suggests Ballas until the spring. And yet I just don’t think Matt Goss can hack that, or the nation’s mental health. So what gives? This is 27:47 on Threads.
"There are several explosions in the Shevchenkivskyi district, in the center of the capital city. All services are rushing to the scene. More details later" - Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579344995357982720
It's weird to go on YouTube and find a video from 10 years ago entitled "1938 stock departs Morden". The oldest trains on the London Underground today are the 1972 trains used on the Bakerloo Line. It's easy to forget these 1938 trains were still being used relatively recently.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Doesn't the lack of reaction over Kerch make you question your theories? As has been discussed the Kerch bridge is totemic for Putin. It is the physical symbol of Crimea being reunited with Russia. Putin personally opened it by driving a truck across etc etc. And everything we know about his personality says that he hates losing face. So he surely wanted a massive reaction.
And yet... nothing. There hasn't been a reaction. Why not? The only answer is obvious. It's because Putin does not have free reign. He is held back by the KGB-oligarch nexus in Moscow and they won't let him go any further.
They are holding Putin in office but not in power, as the fall guy when Russian troops get POW'd in huge numbers in Kherson. The Russian army being bussed back to the border sans weapons will require a head to roll.
The Russian people will be satisfied with Putin's. The revolution will fizzle out with him. The rest of the military and the oligarch's can stay in place without the barricades being erected.
That seems unlikely. Traditionally, when unpopular governments are overthrown there is a violent clearout of the whole lot. The decision to overthrow the discredited Honecker in East Germany didn’t save Egon Krenz and his allies from a prison sentence.
Morning all! Reading up on this week's minority government festival we're back to basic questions about morality.
The policies being proposed by the government are immoral. Their own MPs say so, and the rebellion against cutting 45p continues this week with rebellions against cutting welfare spending education spending and allowing developers to build executive style homes on your local park.
I'm not saying the Tories are immoral - it's Tory rebels who are stopping this - but more of a societal norm which is acting as a hard barrier against Truss and her crap cabinet.
Morning all! Reading up on this week's minority government festival we're back to basic questions about morality.
The policies being proposed by the government are immoral. Their own MPs say so, and the rebellion against cutting 45p continues this week with rebellions against cutting welfare spending education spending and allowing developers to build executive style homes on your local park.
I'm not saying the Tories are immoral - it's Tory rebels who are stopping this - but more of a societal norm which is acting as a hard barrier against Truss and her crap cabinet.
Thing is, MPs will know from their own councils and constituents that's services are cut to the bone (despite the increasing costs of delivery - funny that swingeing 'efficiency' savings often increase long-term costs). There's not much left to cut.
If weird data comes in, do not immediately dismiss it as rogue
1. Look at the data
2. Take a deep breath. Dismiss your normalcy bias. Look again. Be honest with yourself
3. Crunch the numbers
Then you get a result which might be quite accurate. Let us pray that Max Tegmark, even if accurate in his probabilities, is wrong in his worst case scenario
It's been going on 8 months and I still don't get why some people like that think 'urging de-escalation' is some grand moral position in of itself. This isn't a war of words, it's a war, practical de-escalation surely requires some pretty significant and concrete steps and willingness, most particularly from the aggressor. In the absence of that willingness simply urging peace or de-escalation is as impactful as singing kumbaya.
So the question is what achieves that willingness for the aggressor, and its hard to see how the suggestions of Musk, or Stop the War, of to some degree rewarding the aggressor, achieves that willingness - that happened 8 years ago, and led directly to the latest invasion.
Now, that doesn't mean anyone worried about nuclear catastrophe is inherently wrong, but the Musks of this world are also not coming in with some moral or coldly practical take when their interventions are one stop above from 'give peace a chance'.
I was talking more generally about predictions, and the need for an open mind in a Time of Weirdness
Nuclear Disaster is now a very real threat, and we have to accept that, and factor it in, even if it scares us
But in the narrower scheme of the Ukraine war: yes. There was a very articulate post by @TheValiant earlier on which explained why we now have no choice but to support Ukraine. Because even if we don't Ukraine will continue anyway. I can see the logic. We have to face down Putin, might as well do it with Kyiv
It is a tremendously delicate decision. I am really not sure we should support Ukraine in retaking Crimea, if it comes to it
You’re still barking up the wrong tree. If there’s a WMD escalation it will be with nerve agent, not nukes. Putin crossed that “redline” before in Syria and there was no consequence from the West at all. I think he’d be right in thinking the Black Sea fleet would be left untouched by the US if he did that. Although the US would find other ways to indirectly negate the impact of course. But he might do it anyway just to be a tough guy and because some will (incorrectly) persuade him it can change the course of the battlefield.
What’s against use of nerve agent? The open countryside fighting that is characterising this phase of the war is not well suited to it. Wind can change after all. If we get to lots of urban warfare then perhaps it comes into play.
You'd have a point if I had argued otherwise
I have said for the last 48 hours I expect Putin's reaction to Kerch will be non-nuke but dramatic. He will only go tactical nuke if completely cornered; he is not that, yet
A missile assault on Odesa, a chemical/nerve thing, who knows? It will be something
And if I am wrong and he does nothing at all I will come on here and confess my idiocy, and also give sincere thanks. That means he is a paper tiger, and we probably have the mastery of him
I’ve only been dipping in and out here recently so probably missed the timing detail of your fear. I think he’s using Kerch to justify an internal purge (truck came from Russia!), which really is him shaping the political battlefield for ignoble retreat. As I said earlier, your MIT professors believes it’s virtually certain he cannot survive if he loses the war. I disagree.
I thought your analysis of the MIT guy's analysis was reasonable. The prof is too pessimistic. It is - as you say - not 100% certain Putin falls if his war is lost. More like 60-80%? And so on
Add these altogether and the 1 in 6 prediction of a total nuclear war is seriously over-gloomy
Nonetheless it is now in the realms of the possible. If forced to put figures on it I'd say 3% chance of all out nuclear war and 15% chance of a tactical nuke. Actually considerably down from the last week, due to his lack of reaction over Kerch. So far
Putin is probably safe, even if Russia is beaten comprehensively. Blame internal enemies, corruption and NATO interference, direct public ire towards array of perfidious foreigners and bad generals. Conduct purge. Move on.
"15% chance of a tactical nuke."
I would put higher. More like 40%.
I would say 0.40%
15%, 40%, 0.4%?
None of you can ever be proved wrong of course.
It is a binary event. 0% or 100% it will happen.
True, but only a 0% or a 100% prediction can ever be wrong.
Not under a frequentist model with a repeatable event. What’s the probability that I roll a 3 on a fair die? Because we can repeat that event many times, we can demonstrate that the correct probability of the event is something between 0% and 100%.
Of course, we’re talking here about what is effectively a one-off event, so the frequentist position breaks down.
Hurrah for private schools although I am shocked to know children who attend private schools know people in middle class professional jobs.
Privately educated pupils are far more likely to know bankers, politicians and lawyers because of flourishing old boy and girl networks.
Research shows state school pupils are twice as likely to have no professional to support them when compared with a child at an independent school.
Those at fee-charging schools are seven times more likely than their state school peers to know a banker or politician and four times more likely to know a lawyer.
The research from Zero Gravity, a social mobility tech platform, reveals that access to a professional network is a strong predictor of a pupil’s likelihood to apply to and win a place at elite universities. It intends to repeat its Gap Zero report annually.
The report says that a private education helps ease the path to leading universities but it is “not necessarily the better facilities and low staff-to-student ratio that achieves this”.
It continues: “Rather, the main benefit of a private education is the associated spheres of influence and support that these networks facilitate.”
Privately educated pupils were found to be nearly twice as likely to report having been encouraged to apply to a Russell Group university as their state-educated peers.
They are also markedly more likely to believe family friends had the experience to help with their applications. They are twice as likely to know a doctor and more than twice as likely to know an accountant.
A state school pupil is as likely to know no one who went to Oxbridge as a private school pupil is likely to know more than nine.
"There are several explosions in the Shevchenkivskyi district, in the center of the capital city. All services are rushing to the scene. More details later" - Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579344995357982720
Air raid sirens overnight in most Western Ukranian cities. Air defences heard being activated around Kiev, but reports now on the ground of several explosions.
Morning all! Reading up on this week's minority government festival we're back to basic questions about morality.
The policies being proposed by the government are immoral. Their own MPs say so, and the rebellion against cutting 45p continues this week with rebellions against cutting welfare spending education spending and allowing developers to build executive style homes on your local park.
I'm not saying the Tories are immoral - it's Tory rebels who are stopping this - but more of a societal norm which is acting as a hard barrier against Truss and her crap cabinet.
Thing is, MPs will know from their own councils and constituents that's services are cut to the bone (despite the increasing costs of delivery - funny that swingeing 'efficiency' savings often increase long-term costs). There's not much left to cut.
So many of the 2019 Tory intake are Thick as Mince. They believe what they are told even when they can see reality and the facts are indisputable.
But even morons like Jake Young are demanding the levelling up they were elected on actually happens. Because they know that if it doesn't they lose their seats. Nobody voted for Trussnomics. It has no democratic mandate, and that ultimately will kill it.
Foreign minister spends half their life on planes and in hotels. Good to hear.
As I recall Truss developed a taste for expensive travel and entertaining whilst Foreign secretary. I've personally got no problem with this, but it is going to be a bad look as she tries to roll out 'austerity 2'.
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
Well the trouble with your point is that Covid and the current international situation impacts all our economic competitors fairly equally, but the UK is under performing those competitors. The stand out difference is leaving the single market. The impact on UK exports and inward investment is simply stark, and therefore the reduced economic efficiency of the UK can absolutely be put down to Brexit.
One thing I do not really understand from the pro-Brexit side is the refusal to accept that in the short to medium to term (at least) it is a net economic negative relative to our former trading partners. Doesn't mean we won't still outperform some (just relatively less so).
There is a converse argument that's been forgotten in the years since the vote: the single market was never completed and probably never could be because of differences in language and business and political cultures.
It's become an article of faith that the single market is a good thing economically, but the actual evidence for it is fairly thin on the ground. Having a deal which gives us zero-tariffs and quotas (which was not on offer before we joined the EEC) but also doesn't oblige us to follow everything Brussels does is very far from being self-evidently bad.
Is that likely to be on offer?
That's what we've got (with the exception of the NI protocol).
The issue isn't really tariffs. These are falling around the world. The problem is product standards. The single market aligns product standards. If you are outside the single market you have to prove that you comply before you can sell inside the EU. It is a massive non tariff barrier. It is the difficulty of being outside the regulatory space that is killing our exports because the cost of proving compliance are significantly higher than any applicable tarrif.
Actually, the EU regulatory structure for most goods - the CE Mark - is incredibly low touch, and is almost entirely self certified. The US, and in particular the UL fire standards, are much more onerous.
There was no need for any of it when we were still in the EU, and however light it may be said to be, the reality is that the new regulations are killing small business exports. No support has been given to exporters at all and the result is that farmers and small entrepreneurs are being driven to the wall.
"There are several explosions in the Shevchenkivskyi district, in the center of the capital city. All services are rushing to the scene. More details later" - Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitschko https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579344995357982720
Air raid sirens overnight in most Western Ukranian cities. Air defences heard being activated around Kiev, but reports now on the ground of several explosions.
Seems Putin’s lashing out in fury but not going nuclear.
Comments
Even 0.4% chances happen sometimes.
Security council meeting tomorrow.
Look how much eternal shining glory now accrues to @eadric with his February 2020 prediction of 260,000 deaths from Covid total. And it now stands at 191,000. And we were just three weeks into the pandemic and no one knew anything. Except him
On this site, you put your balls on the line with a hard prediction, or you don't count
What times we live in!!
Fiscal drag is a significant tax rise, and below-inflation pay rises (or even just avoiding above-inflation pay-rises) is a significant real terms spending cut. Combine the two and the Exchequer should have many billions more than expected in the prior OBR reports.
What it won't have though, is much room for further giveaways closer to the election.
"Coronavirus will be a bad season of flu, at worst"
In general taunting people with poor predictions is a little juvenile, but @IshmaelZ linked to that PB February 2020 thread, and I couldn't resist. Soz Boz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overexaggerate
Those predictions of 15%, 40% or 0.4% of a tactical nuke... If one is used, who was right? If one isn't used, who was right?
A: They were all right. In either case.
But yes, putting numbers and probabilities on things is what we do.
The Russian people will be satisfied with Putin's. The revolution will fizzle out with him. The rest of the military and the oligarch's can stay in place without the barricades being erected.
But you can't, can you?
I don't like to rule out possibilities. Except for utterly insane suggestions like the death of the car in the next decade or two.
But it is a way for numbers people to get a grip on anarchic reality, which I guess is why we do it
I'll try and find the comment and PM you
However, I would place the odds of an attention-seeking drunkard using PB to speculate wildly on the use of a tactical nuke at precisely 100%
"@moonshine Posts: 4,742
February 2020
I preferred SeanT’s last persona. This one is insufferably dull."
++++
Nothing ever changes
Just look at number 7 - bloody hell that's prescient! (Please ignore the other nine.)
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election.
4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue.
9. Bitcoin to collapse.
10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
(Actually, I reckon I'm in with a shout on No.2 too - so 2/10 maybe?)
An early election, to form a government with a mandate to balance the budget in one way or another, is unlikely to happen, so the question is whether we can muddle a way through for the next two years before the whole house of cards collapses. Amusing though it is to laugh at the extreme weakness of the Truss Ministry, it puts the country in a perilous position.
This one has collapsed on the basic fundamentals of whether it is still cutting taxes or not.
Can we assume with all the back-tracking, those earning over £150,000 are no longer winners? 2 weeks ago, the biggest tax cutting Budget for half a century. 2 weeks later, everybody is paying more tax.
How the fuck is Kwarteng still in Number 11? Although, I'll happily wait a few days and go for a two-fer with Number 10....
I predicted Labour would win a majority of 200 at the next GE - but I underexaggerated.
5 has happened has it not?
Fiscal drag from frozen thresholds was a tax rise that had already been made, by Sunak. With NI cut, it was a tax-cutting budget for working people that Kwasi did, unless you include decisions already made and baked in by Sunak.
"Liz Truss travel bill in last months as foreign secretary hit nearly £2m"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/09/liz-truss-foreign-secretary-overseas-trips-cost
Kwasi proposed returning the top rate of Income Tax to that which Blair had his entire time in office, and Brown had for all but his final month. But since Kwasi was announcing a change, that was a tax cut, even if it was just cutting back to what it used to be.
A think tank incorporated some of Sunak's tax rises in with Kwasi's budget in order to come out at a conclusion that suited themselves. Sunak had already made those tax rises, and if Kwasi changed it, it would have been a tax cut by Kwasi. Keeping the rates you inherit isn't a tax rise by you.
The eternal triangle: tax, spending, borrowing, will have to be, er, squared.
Whether or not the Government can keep going for another two years without doing anything contentious - achieving nothing other than saving Tory MPs from collecting their P45s - remains to be seen.
The current government seems to be the first government that is entirely incapable of taking steps to balance the budget, because it lacks the authority to do so. For all that people can be cynical about previous governments, I believe that this is a qualitative change that puts the country at material risk of not being able to finance itself.
We are facing the end of the world. AND a collapsing government and terrible recession and all the rest
A foreign secretary spends money on foreign travel? No
Also Liz Truss comes after Boris Johnson. Truss is lamentable, but I don't think anyone regards her as more personally indulgent or profligate than Boris and his spendy young wife
However, their hydrocarbons industry and their IT sector will still be featuring in the Flint Knappers Monthly centrefold, receiving the Enormo-dildo...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63195504
It is true that Russian officials say three people were killed: RIA:
https://ria.ru/20221010/terakt-1822678351.html
What about the driver of the lorry?
Tomorrow's meeting of the Russian security council is not an emergency meeting. The body meets weekly. The meeting was planned.
Dmitry Medvedev who is the vice-chairman of the SC has said that Russia's response can only be the direct destruction of the terrorists.
Medvedev might be Putin's successor (again) if Shoigu is considered not the right person.
Judging from western media alone ISTM there is a desire in the west for the next big event to be a Russian tactical nuke.
The question people should be asking is how can the Tories win the next election. The idea that "nobody ever recovers from poll deficits of x% a year and a half out" is silly. It's easy to think of possible events that could increase the p of a Tory maj. Such as the sinking of a boatful of refugees in the Channel for instance - or the replacement of one of the non-white great officers of state with a white person who isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Putin will (probably) still be at the helm at the end of all of this.
Meanwhile, returning to serious grownup land, what's with the NATO-British line about a possible Russian tactical nuclear "test"? Did that word just accidentally get through to the propaganda output without anybody noticing? That seems unlikely. So what is its function? You only need to "test" a weapon that's being developed or improved. A "test" is different from an "exercise".
The response to the Kerch bridge attack - meaning the part of the response that will be billed by senior Russian officials EITHER as "here's the response" OR as "we're not saying anything, but whoopsa-f*cking-daisy, hmmm?" - will probably be highly targeted. And it may have high surprise value and be far away from the front lines.
Note that there have been strikes against Russia accompanied with "whoopsadaisy, hmm?" psywar output (the Saki airbase, the pipeline), but as far as I am aware there have been none yet in this war by Russia.
A light grey op may be what's coming,
We presume Truss and Kwasi kept OBR out of it for the assessment would prove a blocker of the governments plans, but what is the track record of the OBR, have they ever produced reports thwarting government intentions so government didn’t proceed, or in fact produced what proved to be overly optimistic growth/deficit forecasts thus enabling government intentions?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/24/how-uk-energy-policies-have-left-britain-exposed-to-winter-gas-price-hikes
"‘Relying on luck’: why does the UK have such limited gas storage?
Jillian Ambrose
Analysis: Closure of huge storage plant, misplaced optimism in fracking and demise of North Sea gas have all played a part"
And yes, countries that have been offered the chance at democracy and don't take it are uncouth. Full of savages that want to ban books like Nazis.
Using nuclear weapons probably makes Russia's situation worse. Putin probably also thinks this, but we don't know. There's an argument that Putin might use them anyhow out of either idiocy or desperation. It's impossible to predict idiocy, and it's too early for desperation.
I suppose it might be obvious to someone who knows a lot about Russian politics, but I don't think we have anyone like that here?
https://celsiusnetworth.com/Andrew-Yang.htm
* Could be a different Andrew Yang but how many Andrew Yangs are there who'd plausibly have $43,000 in bit-coins lying around.
https://celsiusnetworth.com/Joseph-Manchin.htm
https://celsiusnetworth.com/John-Carswell.htm
People would send them their cryptocurrency (bit-coins or ethereum or whatever) and they'd promise you something like 15% API risk-free. They claimed they were doing various crypto lending and trading things with your money, and they were doing some of these things, but it seems like they were paying out early depositors from later depositors right from the beginning.
It's weird to go on YouTube and find a video from 10 years ago entitled "1938 stock departs Morden". The oldest trains on the London Underground today are the 1972 trains used on the Bakerloo Line. It's easy to forget these 1938 trains were still being used relatively recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7StGoau-Ums
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579332646772957184
Russian soldiers helped themselves to artifacts in almost 40 Ukrainian museums, UA culture minister told AP.
Russian forces pilfered more than 2,000 items from Mariupol museums. Among most unique handwritten Torah scroll, a 200-year-old bible
Uncouth seems a bit generous to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63195504
As opposed to good clean bombardment of schools.
Students in Ukraine go to schools with bomb shelters and pack emergency kits
Many schools across Ukraine have been destroyed, often deliberately targeted by Russian missiles. Schools cannot open unless they have bomb shelters
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579264950836396032
They were promised that they were the liberating army, and that they'd be welcomed with open arms. Instead the bloody locals tries to kill them.
If the Ballas runs riot in the UK this autumn we will be back to square one. They won’t be able to tweak any of the routines in time. People will get roasted again who’ve already had it. People not even competing on Strictly this will also get it. Hopefully they will only get mild/moderate cases, but we don’t know that yet, for sure.
I don’t want to come over all Black Rook but this is ominous. To me it suggests Ballas until the spring. And yet I just don’t think Matt Goss can hack that, or the nation’s mental health. So what gives? This is 27:47 on Threads.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1579344995357982720
If you want to abolish, wait until it gets unpopular.
The policies being proposed by the government are immoral. Their own MPs say so, and the rebellion against cutting 45p continues this week with rebellions against cutting welfare spending education spending and allowing developers to build executive style homes on your local park.
I'm not saying the Tories are immoral - it's Tory rebels who are stopping this - but more of a societal norm which is acting as a hard barrier against Truss and her crap cabinet.
Of course, we’re talking here about what is effectively a one-off event, so the frequentist position breaks down.
Privately educated pupils are far more likely to know bankers, politicians and lawyers because of flourishing old boy and girl networks.
Research shows state school pupils are twice as likely to have no professional to support them when compared with a child at an independent school.
Those at fee-charging schools are seven times more likely than their state school peers to know a banker or politician and four times more likely to know a lawyer.
The research from Zero Gravity, a social mobility tech platform, reveals that access to a professional network is a strong predictor of a pupil’s likelihood to apply to and win a place at elite universities. It intends to repeat its Gap Zero report annually.
The report says that a private education helps ease the path to leading universities but it is “not necessarily the better facilities and low staff-to-student ratio that achieves this”.
It continues: “Rather, the main benefit of a private education is the associated spheres of influence and support that these networks facilitate.”
Privately educated pupils were found to be nearly twice as likely to report having been encouraged to apply to a Russell Group university as their state-educated peers.
They are also markedly more likely to believe family friends had the experience to help with their applications. They are twice as likely to know a doctor and more than twice as likely to know an accountant.
A state school pupil is as likely to know no one who went to Oxbridge as a private school pupil is likely to know more than nine.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flourishing-old-boys-network-is-still-helping-private-pupils-x39bx9hr2
But even morons like Jake Young are demanding the levelling up they were elected on actually happens. Because they know that if it doesn't they lose their seats. Nobody voted for Trussnomics. It has no democratic mandate, and that ultimately will kill it.
Elon Musk wades into China and Taiwan tensions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63196452
Tesla sales in China must need a bit of prodding.
I mean, has he *no* idea what has been going on in Hong Kong?