Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
Except they wouldn't even if the GOP won it, RINOS Romney and Collins would have the casting votes in the Senate.
The GOP would have needed to have won Arizona and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire too for Trumpites to effectively control the Senate
"Category 2 calls include suspected heart attacks and strokes. The England average for October was the worst ever: 1 hour 1 minute and 19 seconds. The target is 18 minutes.
Category 1 are immediate life-critical situations: not breathing, cardiac arrest, bleeding out. The system prioritises them at all costs: if they don't get there, people die in front of the caller. Only London anywhere near target of 7 minutes.
As for something that "merely" requires urgent treatment in an acute context (Category 3s) your mean wait is 3 hours 34 minutes - with 1 in 10 people waiting more than 8 hours forty-nine. These and Category 4s (if clinically stable: more than 4 hours on average) all worst ever.
(I’ve said it a good few times but those puzzling non-COVID excess deaths in England and Wales … just don’t think they’re very puzzling)"
Do you mean you think COVID deaths are being understated at the moment?
No. Excess deaths are due to a collapsed Ambulance and Emergency dept. system.
What's caused the collapse? People leaving the profession and not being replaced?
Are staff still able to be off work due to a positive covid test even though they are not ill?
Would you want your elderly relative treated by someone who knowingly has covid? (Lateral flow are a pretty good indicator of the ability to infect, far better than PCR which can amplify too much).
Your elderly relative is probably 4 or 5 doses of vaccine in at this point. If not now, when?
Preferably not when they are in hospital, and therefore likely more vulnerable.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Thank you.
I think it’s now Candidate(s) % Votes
Kelly Incumbent 51.4% 979,509 95,318 ahead
Masters 46.4% 884,191 Est. vote in: 76%
Laxalt 49.4% 436,854 15,812 ahead
Cortez Masto Incumbent 47.6% 421,042 Est. vote in: 84%
I agree with you, Kelly and Laxalt win here (nice win bet for me on Laxalt)
A 50/50 senate, one pick up each, provided Warnock wins in playoff.
None of us has it 100% Warnock wins, but I really not sure the votes are there for him this time. The GOP can still take senate I call a value bet worth considering today.
Over 300 available at 12.0 for Laxalt so somebody is v confident he's gonna lose.
I'd edit that if my phone would let me as already posted elsewhere.
So now we end up with 2 redundant posts. 3 counting this one.
He really has made the issue his own tbf. Out on his own boat every day filming the scene. Tracking people to hotels to see what's happening there. Putting it all out there for us to see and be extremely concerned about.
Taking a break now, I believe, since he's off to the States to be part of the big Trump Run announcement. Will he have a speaking role? Guess so. It's a long way to go to just hang around the stage.
Farage of course backed Trump even before he was elected President, speaking at a summer Mississippi rally in 2020. He will be there.
On the boats issue he would certainly exploit it better than Tice as RefUK leader
Can’t they actually lock up these morons, I thought there was a legislation change recently to expand the definition of disruptive behaviour?
Bottom line up front - these protestors only recognise fire as fire. The Native Americans knew distinction between good fire, bad fire.
So what the protesters are achieving is two fold.
Firstly, if you believed in their causes, like insulate Britain asap, and so willing to explain it to your mates in a bar before these protests, you are less likely too now, hence they are killing their own cause and making it less likely to happen. Secondly, the only thing they are empowering to happen is a Bill to limit right to protest and clamp down harder on protests being introduced by government and passed by parliament. So they are wrecking freedom for everyone else.
The politics of someone like Braverman benefits from the actions of these protestors.
They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything. The aim is to keep environmental issues in the news. We aren't going to get the necessary changes by stupid fucking voting. Direct action is required.
I admire their persistence but they should be A LOT more violent.
Violence is never a solution. Surely you know that
Anyway environmental issues are constantly in the news and not only in the news on magazine shows and weather reports.
It is something that is regularly out there.
Father Lenin said that one cannot make a revolution in white gloves.
And we are all living with the consequences of his idiocy a century later.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Thank you.
I think it’s now Candidate(s) % Votes
Kelly Incumbent 51.4% 979,509 95,318 ahead
Masters 46.4% 884,191 Est. vote in: 76%
Laxalt 49.4% 436,854 15,812 ahead
Cortez Masto Incumbent 47.6% 421,042 Est. vote in: 84%
I agree with you, Kelly and Laxalt win here (nice win bet for me on Laxalt)
A 50/50 senate, one pick up each, provided Warnock wins in playoff.
None of us has it 100% Warnock wins, but I really not sure the votes are there for him this time. The GOP can still take senate I call a value bet worth considering today.
Over 300 available at 12.0 for Laxalt so somebody is v confident he's gonna lose.
I'd edit that if my phone would let me as already posted elsewhere.
Phone will let you if you switch browser to desktop view.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
But wouldn't Libertarian supporters usually be more pro-GOP than pro-Democrat?
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
(1) Somebody knows something about the ballots that are still to come. (Not implausible.) (2) Someone is very foolishly betting based on the NYTimes and other suggesting that Cortez Masto is likely to win. (Quite possible.) (3) Someone is hedging an existing Senate control bet and it's a very illiquid market, so some small bets moved the price a long way. (Unlikely.)
I tend to trust my judgement. But you should always listen to the market. I'm moving my assessment to a narrow Cortez Masto victory.
It's a very useful opportunity to green out if you're really long Cortez Masto.
He really has made the issue his own tbf. Out on his own boat every day filming the scene. Tracking people to hotels to see what's happening there. Putting it all out there for us to see and be extremely concerned about.
Taking a break now, I believe, since he's off to the States to be part of the big Trump Run announcement. Will he have a speaking role? Guess so. It's a long way to go to just hang around the stage.
Farage of course backed Trump even before he was elected President, speaking at a summer Mississippi rally in 2020. He will be there.
On the boats issue he would certainly exploit it better than Tice as RefUK leader
Tice is invisible as far I can see (or can't see rather). Which is fine by me but I do think you need a bit more 'edge' than he has if you're going to get a new hard right party properly in the game here.
I’d we can all agree that a credible target for climate change is 2% and not the impossible 1.5% then I’d argue we have more or less cracked it. The west moving to electric cars will force the world to do the same and the economics are pushing renewables and nuclear. China and India have woken up and taken an interest and, basically, technology and progress will once again save the day. That’s not even allowing for any clever “Hail Mary” technology solutions to extract what is already in the atmosphere in a few decades.
At 2% or 2.5% some countries will really suffer and we should support them and relocate those who lose their islands; but the U.K. is basically just going to gain a wine industry and more fertile farm land.
You're aware that the larger problem is agricultural systems? I'm not a vegetarian, but it's hard to ignore the fact that agriculture (specifically meat production, largely because of dependence on imported grain/soya for intensive farms) causes more climate change emissions than all transport (cars, trains, planes, ships) combined. Quite a lot is being done on transport and forms of energy production. Agriculture is still moving in the wrong direction..
I admit to ignoring that because I won’t reduce my meat or dairy consumption, so won’t ask anyone else to either. But I was under the impression I’d seen modelling to show that a massive shift to renewable and a change in the automotive industry could do 2-2.5%.
Not saying it’s easy by the way - just that I think there’s a way through that people can live with, and if we have cracked that then we can mobilise people.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
But wouldn't Libertarian supporters usually be more pro-GOP than pro-Democrat?
In New Hampshire maybe, not in Georgia where their social liberalism seems to override their fiscal conservatism.
In 2020 for example Perdue the GOP candidate got 49.7% in the first round, Ossoff the Democrat 47.9% and Hazell the Libertarian 2.4%.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
Except they wouldn't even if the GOP won it, RINOS Romney and Collins would have the casting votes in the Senate.
The GOP would have needed to have won Arizona and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire too for Trumpites to effectively control the Senate
That might be true in reality, but it's certainly not how the outside blue money will portray it.
He really has made the issue his own tbf. Out on his own boat every day filming the scene. Tracking people to hotels to see what's happening there. Putting it all out there for us to see and be extremely concerned about.
Taking a break now, I believe, since he's off to the States to be part of the big Trump Run announcement. Will he have a speaking role? Guess so. It's a long way to go to just hang around the stage.
Farage of course backed Trump even before he was elected President, speaking at a summer Mississippi rally in 2020. He will be there.
On the boats issue he would certainly exploit it better than Tice as RefUK leader
Tice is invisible as far I can see (or can't see rather). Which is fine by me but I do think you need a bit more 'edge' than he has if you're going to get a new hard right party properly in the game here.
I think they are also being denied the space by Braverman being Braverman.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
He really has made the issue his own tbf. Out on his own boat every day filming the scene. Tracking people to hotels to see what's happening there. Putting it all out there for us to see and be extremely concerned about.
Taking a break now, I believe, since he's off to the States to be part of the big Trump Run announcement. Will he have a speaking role? Guess so. It's a long way to go to just hang around the stage.
Farage of course backed Trump even before he was elected President, speaking at a summer Mississippi rally in 2020. He will be there.
On the boats issue he would certainly exploit it better than Tice as RefUK leader
Tice is invisible as far I can see (or can't see rather). Which is fine by me but I do think you need a bit more 'edge' than he has if you're going to get a new hard right party properly in the game here.
I think they are also being denied the space by Braverman being Braverman.
Pretty willing to stretch my neck out and say Democrats have won NV and AZ.
My guess is they then narrowly lose GA in the runoff. The incentive to turn out is weakened a little if Senate already known to be safe.
Surely that applies even more so for the Republicans - they have already lost. Whereas the Democrats can extend the party by kicking the Republicans a bit more....
Pretty willing to stretch my neck out and say Democrats have won NV and AZ.
My guess is they then narrowly lose GA in the runoff. The incentive to turn out is weakened a little if Senate already known to be safe.
Piece on 538 yesterday about Georgia showed that Kemp (R-Gov) ran well ahead of Walker (R-Sen), and suggested that it's only voters enthused about Kemp that kept Walker afloat. Prognosis was that the very popular Warnock would win the runoff fairly easily.
Well we've long called the House for the GOP on here - posters who really know their onions, I mean - yet there it is merrily trading away @ 1.08. No more going on from me - I'm finito now - but just in case anyone has the urge.
Large numbers of villages reportedly falling to the Ukrainian forces in Kherson now.
Russian morale must be rock bottom. They were told this was now Russia they were defending. Now they are scurrying towards Crimea as fast as they can, after the loss of thousands of dead and injured - for what?
You'd think morale would be very low, but they're managing to conduct a fighting retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro, under fire, without it turning into a rout.
In the circumstances that's reasonably impressive, and it suggests that the Russian armed forces as a whole are not on the brink of large scale mutiny.
But these were pretty much the best of the remaining Russian professional soldiers thrown into the "SMO". Main reason they had to be got out. Might have expected some semblance of order. Doesn't mean they aren't feeling "WTAF???"
What the morale is like in Donbas amongst the conscript cannon fodder we can perhaps guess.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Large numbers of villages reportedly falling to the Ukrainian forces in Kherson now.
Russian morale must be rock bottom. They were told this was now Russia they were defending. Now they are scurrying towards Crimea as fast as they can, after the loss of thousands of dead and injured - for what?
I posted this just before the threads changed yesterday, but thought it worth repeating.
Russia's retreat in Kherson is a disaster for the Ukrainians:
Pillock.
The Ukrainian winter this year for Russian troops will have the temperature raised many degrees - by HIMARS. Each and every night.
De Santis national GOP primary problem is that his abortion position is poison to a chunk of the GOP base.
Perhaps do the classic thing of amping up for the nomination then de-wilding for the general. Like Starmer's done. Like Truss should have done (but she forgot the de-wilding bit).
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
De Santis national GOP primary problem is that his abortion position is poison to a chunk of the GOP base.
Perhaps do the classic thing of amping up for the nomination then de-wilding for the general. Like Starmer's done. Like Truss should have done (but she forgot the de-wilding bit).
If you can. maybe like Truss it’s core values and beliefs.
De Santis national GOP primary problem is that his abortion position is poison to a chunk of the GOP base.
Perhaps do the classic thing of amping up for the nomination then de-wilding for the general. Like Starmer's done. Like Truss should have done (but she forgot the de-wilding bit).
If you can. maybe like Truss it’s core values and beliefs.
Any chance Warnock can get to 50% and prevent the run-off? Thought it was nailed on from earlier comments.
"99% reporting · Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker advance. The second round will take place on 06 December 2022. · The Associated Press has called this race"
I wonder if Russia would have announced the evacuation of Kherson yesterday if the Republicans had won bigly the night before?
It is a bit coincidental, isn't it? Russia's situation to the west of the river has been troubled for some time, but it seems a little odd that they announced it so soon after the election results went somewhat against them.
Can someone who follows this more closely explain why the counting isn't finished yet? We're done and dusted in a completely manual GE by the same time the next day and the PM is preparing a victory speech for the 6pm news cycle. Every time the US has elections I fail to understand why it takes so fucking long for them to count, is it the GOP attempting to prevent urban votes from being counted or something else sinister, or just plain old incompetence?
Well we've long called the House for the GOP on here - posters who really know their onions, I mean - yet there it is merrily trading away @ 1.08. No more going on from me - I'm finito now - but just in case anyone has the urge.
If that doesn't pay out, there's going to be another march on the Capitol - by very disgruntled betters.
I'm assuming people have seen this but in case they haven't because the view seemed to be CCM might struggle
He’s guessing how they voted, I think polling I trust told me how they voted. 🙂
No he is not guessing.
Tens of thousands of mail in ballots have been counted and they are 2:1 Cortez.
There are approx 100,000 still to count.
Reasonable to extrapolate based on a sample of well over 10,000.
That’s true.
Unless the order of counting has a touch of
“mirage” about it. Can you be sure it hasn’t?
You give every impression of someone who is talking their book Moon. Given the amount of liquidity at 12+ for Lax, it looks like a classic value loser.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
There's no Repo or Stock Loan in Bitcoin, is there?
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Any chance Warnock can get to 50% and prevent the run-off? Thought it was nailed on from earlier comments.
If he doesn’t, there is only one candidate who can be the loser and one who gets a bruceybonus from that position. It will only need bad economic news in the next month or Biden to throw up in the Japanese Ambassadors lap and Warnocks could be out.
I wonder if Russia would have announced the evacuation of Kherson yesterday if the Republicans had won bigly the night before?
It is a bit coincidental, isn't it? Russia's situation to the west of the river has been troubled for some time, but it seems a little odd that they announced it so soon after the election results went somewhat against them.
They've been preparing the evacuation for some time, building defensive lines on the other side of the river, stockpiling boats to ferry people across, losing civilian equipment (like fire engines). I totally think they delayed the announcement until after the election to avoid giving Biden a boost, but I think they would have done the same if the red wave had happened.
Well we've long called the House for the GOP on here - posters who really know their onions, I mean - yet there it is merrily trading away @ 1.08. No more going on from me - I'm finito now - but just in case anyone has the urge.
The danger with wafer thin wins, you are in office, and looked to for the lead, but power rests on getting all your herd to vote as one. No wonder the reporters at GOP victory parties yesterday found the mood turning into a wake.
But wait, we were assured by the PB Tory Loyalists that hiring Cruella was 14D chess to get the news agenda back on to immigration, thus roasting Labour.
Can someone who follows this more closely explain why the counting isn't finished yet? We're done and dusted in a completely manual GE by the same time the next day and the PM is preparing a victory speech for the 6pm news cycle. Every time the US has elections I fail to understand why it takes so fucking long for them to count, is it the GOP attempting to prevent urban votes from being counted or something else sinister, or just plain old incompetence?
Can someone who follows this more closely explain why the counting isn't finished yet? We're done and dusted in a completely manual GE by the same time the next day and the PM is preparing a victory speech for the 6pm news cycle. Every time the US has elections I fail to understand why it takes so fucking long for them to count, is it the GOP attempting to prevent urban votes from being counted or something else sinister, or just plain old incompetence?
It's plain old incompetence, starting with the rule that one of our US resident commentators flagged up earlier in the week that in one state votes have to be counted if they're postmarked on or before Election Day and received up to three weeks after Election Day!
Any chance Warnock can get to 50% and prevent the run-off? Thought it was nailed on from earlier comments.
"99% reporting · Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker advance. The second round will take place on 06 December 2022. · The Associated Press has called this race"
That’s an announcement from a media organisation, AP, *not* from their version of the Returning Officer, who will say nothing until all the votes have been counted.
Can someone who follows this more closely explain why the counting isn't finished yet? We're done and dusted in a completely manual GE by the same time the next day and the PM is preparing a victory speech for the 6pm news cycle. Every time the US has elections I fail to understand why it takes so fucking long for them to count, is it the GOP attempting to prevent urban votes from being counted or something else sinister, or just plain old incompetence?
well for one thing, in Nevada as long as your postal vote is postmarked by election day it doesnt have to arrive until Saturday.
Any chance Warnock can get to 50% and prevent the run-off? Thought it was nailed on from earlier comments.
If he doesn’t, there is only one candidate who can be the loser and one who gets a bruceybonus from that position. It will only need bad economic news in the next month or Biden to throw up in the Japanese Ambassadors lap and Warnocks could be out.
I really don't think Bush Snr throwing up in the Japanese PM's lap made the slightest difference in 1992, he was ill that night and should probably just have stayed in his room.
It took place in January 1992 and indeed by March 1992 Bush led Clinton and Perot.
He only lost the lead first to Perot in May and then Clinton in July
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Who is on the "hard right" (from the link) of Labour - has Tommy Robinson become a member? I don't think I've ever seen anyone referring to the hard left of the Tories.
SKS has done the Labour lefties up like kippers, that's true enough. Ruthless bugger, isn't he? But RBL would be leader if she'd been popular enough (and Corbyn would have been PM if he was).
What do we think - is it a feint right, to do the centre/centre-right voters up like kippers after the next GE or is he really all centrist dad?
I think the first - but only after bedding in for a few years.
I do get the BJO grievance btw. Don't share it but I get it. Starmer fooled the Left to secure the leader job, then not only moved right but stamped all over them.
Also when Jez was leader many "centrists" in the party actively worked to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects - that's when they weren't prioritizing a 2nd EU referendum over replacing a Tory government.
So BJO is justifiably an angry camper. But he lost me when he started saying he preferred Johnson and the Cons to Labour under Starmer. I can't be having that. That's not something I find compatible with being on the Left.
No, people in the party didn't actively work to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects. That's just one of the far left's myths, since debunked by the Forde report.
The reality is that Long-Bailey would have lost badly in 2020 regardless. She got only 27.6% on the first ballot and the vast majority of Nandy's votes would have gone to Starmer on the 2nd ballot. Since then, the far left have left the party in droves which just shows what a bunch of short term entryists too many of them were. Joined to vote for Corbyn, left when his successor lost. Good riddance. Go back in time and repeat the 2020 election with the current membership and Long-Bailey would not get more than 20%.
Labour Party internal elections to select parliamentary candidates have high turnouts typically involving more than half the total membership, and when you get that sort of turnout the far left are marginalised. Yes some of their candidates have fallen foul of "due diligence", but plenty haven't and have been longlisted. The fact that next to none of those have apparently beaten other candidates to get the final selection is down to the fact that the far left is now a small minority of the wider party membership.
I wouldn't say Forde debunked all of that. You're quite an interesting poster btw. On the right of Labour, but firmly Labour, yet a Leaver. That's quite unusual, I think.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
Can someone who follows this more closely explain why the counting isn't finished yet? We're done and dusted in a completely manual GE by the same time the next day and the PM is preparing a victory speech for the 6pm news cycle. Every time the US has elections I fail to understand why it takes so fucking long for them to count, is it the GOP attempting to prevent urban votes from being counted or something else sinister, or just plain old incompetence?
Consensus seems to be a mixture of three factors.
1. Underfunding of the elections process in general. I'd guess we have more people per 1,000 electors counting the vote.
2. Very complicated ballot papers. When we have multiple votes on the same day (eg general and local elections) we use separate ballot papers and separate ballot boxes for each election. This makes it a lot easier to count the votes as the ballot paper is simpler, and your vote in the two elections can be counted simultaneously by different people. In the US, it's normal to have dozens of different votes on the same ballot - Senate, House, State Senate, State House, State judges, AG, propositions, etc. Even with machines helping the count, if there's a problem with any of the votes that requires manual intervention it slows the whole thing up.
3. Detailed rules and procedures for validating votes and detecting fraud. There seems to be a very large overhead in validating postal votes. In the UK the signature check is normally done in the days ahead of polling day, so that time on election night is saved, but often there are laws prohibiting such efficiency for counts in the US.
I'd at least start by having a separate ballot paper for the Federal, State and Country level votes.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
Spot on. Thank you. And all very good reasons for ensuring we don't rush to judgement.
Chris Jordan was only 5th MVP in England's most dominant WC win of all time according to Cricinfo
CRICINFO’S MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS OF THE MATCH
PLAYER Team TI Runs I. Runs B. Impact Bowl I. Wkts Bo. Impact Alex Hales ENG 107.51 86(47) 101.9 107.51 - - 0 Hardik Pandya INDIA 76.96 63(33) 67.3 77.21 0/34 - - 0.26 Jos Buttler ENG 72.35 80(49) 82.51 72.35 - - 0 Adil Rashid ENG 70.36 - - 0 1/20 2 70.36 Chris Jordan ENG 47.31 - - 0 3/43 2.58 47.31
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
For a laugh google this: "What will bitcoin be worth in 2030?".
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
The voters view all other 49 as MAGA?
Indeed, even in Georgia the choice would be between a Mitt Romney or Democrat controlled Senate, the GOP needed to gain far more Senate seats for a Trumpite majority
Who is on the "hard right" (from the link) of Labour - has Tommy Robinson become a member? I don't think I've ever seen anyone referring to the hard left of the Tories.
SKS has done the Labour lefties up like kippers, that's true enough. Ruthless bugger, isn't he? But RBL would be leader if she'd been popular enough (and Corbyn would have been PM if he was).
What do we think - is it a feint right, to do the centre/centre-right voters up like kippers after the next GE or is he really all centrist dad?
I think the first - but only after bedding in for a few years.
I do get the BJO grievance btw. Don't share it but I get it. Starmer fooled the Left to secure the leader job, then not only moved right but stamped all over them.
Also when Jez was leader many "centrists" in the party actively worked to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects - that's when they weren't prioritizing a 2nd EU referendum over replacing a Tory government.
So BJO is justifiably an angry camper. But he lost me when he started saying he preferred Johnson and the Cons to Labour under Starmer. I can't be having that. That's not something I find compatible with being on the Left.
No, people in the party didn't actively work to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects. That's just one of the far left's myths, since debunked by the Forde report.
The reality is that Long-Bailey would have lost badly in 2020 regardless. She got only 27.6% on the first ballot and the vast majority of Nandy's votes would have gone to Starmer on the 2nd ballot. Since then, the far left have left the party in droves which just shows what a bunch of short term entryists too many of them were. Joined to vote for Corbyn, left when his successor lost. Good riddance. Go back in time and repeat the 2020 election with the current membership and Long-Bailey would not get more than 20%.
Labour Party internal elections to select parliamentary candidates have high turnouts typically involving more than half the total membership, and when you get that sort of turnout the far left are marginalised. Yes some of their candidates have fallen foul of "due diligence", but plenty haven't and have been longlisted. The fact that next to none of those have apparently beaten other candidates to get the final selection is down to the fact that the far left is now a small minority of the wider party membership.
I wouldn't say Forde debunked all of that. You're quite an interesting poster btw. On the right of Labour, but firmly Labour, yet a Leaver. That's quite unusual, I think.
Forde said the Centrists in Labour back office secretly diverted monies from winnable marginal seats to safe Labour defences for factional reasons.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
For a laugh google this: "What will bitcoin be worth in 2030?".
Let me guess, somewhere between 0.01¢ and $10,000,000?
I'm assuming people have seen this but in case they haven't because the view seemed to be CCM might struggle
He’s guessing how they voted, I think polling I trust told me how they voted. 🙂
No he is not guessing.
Tens of thousands of mail in ballots have been counted and they are 2:1 Cortez.
There are approx 100,000 still to count.
Reasonable to extrapolate based on a sample of well over 10,000.
That’s true.
Unless the order of counting has a touch of
“mirage” about it. Can you be sure it hasn’t?
You give every impression of someone who is talking their book Moon. Given the amount of liquidity at 12+ for Lax, it looks like a classic value loser.
The Dems for Nevada is the same price - 1.08 - as the GOP for the House as it happens. Yet one is perceived as done deal and the other as on a knife edge.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
The extra big potential doo doo is all these "synthetic" versions of other crypto e.g. they make a version that is supposedly backed 1:1 between a real bitcoin and a "wrapped" one....apparently large proportion of all the "synthetic" versions on the Solana blockchain come backed by FTX....
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
Spot on. Thank you. And all very good reasons for ensuring we don't rush to judgement.
It would help a lot if it wasn't the same numpties telling us to decarbonise as telling us nuclear power is bad.
We have nearly limitless carbon neutral energy at our fingertips in the form of nuclear power, and if it was invented today it would be seen as the saviour of the environment.
The trouble is the XR numpties and the Just Stop Oil numpties want us to decarbonise in a way that makes us all poorer and rolls our standard of living back to pre-industrial times.
We get it - we need to transition away from fossil fuels. But the way to do that is through promoting nuclear power - not hanging off gantries stopping people from driving to work.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
A short position (of any size) has to be maintained in some way though. There must be a bitcoin lending market.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
For a laugh google this: "What will bitcoin be worth in 2030?".
Let me guess, somewhere between 0.01¢ and $10,000,000?
These are typical predictions:
"at least $458,330.60"
- which is at least laughably precise
and
"Analysts predict that the price would surge to around $500,000 per coin in 2025 and $1 million per coin in 2030."
The fast food chain sent an app alert on Wednesday, saying: "It's memorial day for Kristallnacht! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!"
Just WOW!!!!
Ratner moment?
Either they are: Ferociously anti-Semitic Fabulously ignorant or Incompetent beyond belief.
Would they, I wonder, have made a similar error over depictions of the prophet, perhaps eating a chickenburger?
Tue only question in Nevada is "How much rural vote is left to count"
If there is a bunch then it is on like Donley Kong. However looking at historical results my estimation isn that the vast remainder of outstanding vote is in Washoe and Clark.
I'm assuming people have seen this but in case they haven't because the view seemed to be CCM might struggle
He’s guessing how they voted, I think polling I trust told me how they voted. 🙂
No he is not guessing.
Tens of thousands of mail in ballots have been counted and they are 2:1 Cortez.
There are approx 100,000 still to count.
Reasonable to extrapolate based on a sample of well over 10,000.
That’s true.
Unless the order of counting has a touch of
“mirage” about it. Can you be sure it hasn’t?
You give every impression of someone who is talking their book Moon. Given the amount of liquidity at 12+ for Lax, it looks like a classic value loser.
The Dems for Nevada is the same price - 1.08 - as the GOP for the House as it happens. Yet one is perceived as done deal and the other as on a knife edge.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
The voters view all other 49 as MAGA?
The voters view all other 49 as MAGA?
Happy to meet you halfway Driver by saying there will be a lot of different arguments put out there for voters to chew on, like the one you made. But my analysis is inflation and economy matters a lot to the GA electorate, the GOP vote was strong there this week, sub polling shows Warnock is not strongly liked, a better candidate against him Warnock likely already be out. The run off will be influenced by national concerns like worsening economy not just a battle between local candidates. I would have this 50/50 to start with and see what the month brings.
The fast food chain sent an app alert on Wednesday, saying: "It's memorial day for Kristallnacht! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!"
Just WOW!!!!
Ratner moment?
Either they are: Ferociously anti-Semitic Fabulously ignorant or Incompetent beyond belief.
Would they, I wonder, have made a similar error over depictions of the prophet, perhaps eating a chickenburger?
Reading the article it is clear they made the mistake (as Bart mentioned earlier) of relying upon automated systems. An automated advertising tweet system linked to a calendar which has national holidays and events listed in it resulted in an incredibly crass message being sent out. In this instance I am strongly inclined to believe their explanation because I don't believe that anyone, particularly in Germany, would be that stupid or tone deaf.
It explains rather than excuses the cockup and I would hope they learn their lesson and rely on unchecked automated systems a little less.
Who is on the "hard right" (from the link) of Labour - has Tommy Robinson become a member? I don't think I've ever seen anyone referring to the hard left of the Tories.
SKS has done the Labour lefties up like kippers, that's true enough. Ruthless bugger, isn't he? But RBL would be leader if she'd been popular enough (and Corbyn would have been PM if he was).
What do we think - is it a feint right, to do the centre/centre-right voters up like kippers after the next GE or is he really all centrist dad?
I think the first - but only after bedding in for a few years.
I do get the BJO grievance btw. Don't share it but I get it. Starmer fooled the Left to secure the leader job, then not only moved right but stamped all over them.
Also when Jez was leader many "centrists" in the party actively worked to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects - that's when they weren't prioritizing a 2nd EU referendum over replacing a Tory government.
So BJO is justifiably an angry camper. But he lost me when he started saying he preferred Johnson and the Cons to Labour under Starmer. I can't be having that. That's not something I find compatible with being on the Left.
No, people in the party didn't actively work to sabotage Labour's electoral prospects. That's just one of the far left's myths, since debunked by the Forde report.
The reality is that Long-Bailey would have lost badly in 2020 regardless. She got only 27.6% on the first ballot and the vast majority of Nandy's votes would have gone to Starmer on the 2nd ballot. Since then, the far left have left the party in droves which just shows what a bunch of short term entryists too many of them were. Joined to vote for Corbyn, left when his successor lost. Good riddance. Go back in time and repeat the 2020 election with the current membership and Long-Bailey would not get more than 20%.
Labour Party internal elections to select parliamentary candidates have high turnouts typically involving more than half the total membership, and when you get that sort of turnout the far left are marginalised. Yes some of their candidates have fallen foul of "due diligence", but plenty haven't and have been longlisted. The fact that next to none of those have apparently beaten other candidates to get the final selection is down to the fact that the far left is now a small minority of the wider party membership.
I wouldn't say Forde debunked all of that. You're quite an interesting poster btw. On the right of Labour, but firmly Labour, yet a Leaver. That's quite unusual, I think.
Forde said the Centrists in Labour back office secretly diverted monies from winnable marginal seats to safe Labour defences for factional reasons.
Yes, AIR it found evidence of toxic factionalism in both directions.
The fast food chain sent an app alert on Wednesday, saying: "It's memorial day for Kristallnacht! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!"
Just WOW!!!!
Ratner moment?
Either they are: Ferociously anti-Semitic Fabulously ignorant or Incompetent beyond belief.
Would they, I wonder, have made a similar error over depictions of the prophet, perhaps eating a chickenburger?
Option 3 according to the article. Automated system (well, that's overdoing it - 'script') picks notable dates from a supplied calendar (hell, could be Google calendar for all we know) and adds automated advertising for KFC, then Tweets etc. Probably tested it in the US: "It's Thanksgiving! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!", thought that's all good and rolled it out.
Quick summary of what we've seen in the Senate races in the last 24 hours...
Arizona Boy, the counting is slow. In 24 hours, we've moved from 60% counted to 70%. And in that time, Kelly has slightly extended his lead, from 4.6% to 5.0%. While it's not unreasonable to expect that the coming ballots will tilt Republican, the gap has grown and the number of ballots required to overturn has got ever bigger. I think this one will be called for the Democrats fairly soon.
Nevada Phew, this is a nailbighter. When counting stopped on Tuesday evening, an estimated 70% of ballots had been tallyed, and Laxalt led by 3.0%. We're now at 83%, and the lead is down to 1.8%. Cortez Masto has also pulled ahead in Washoe County, which suggests late breaking ballots are going her way. *BUT*: there's only 17% left to count, and she's only moved the needle 1.2% in the last 13%. That suggests to me that she'll end up just short. It's really going to be down to 0.4-0.5% either way.
Yep — it'll probably be 50 GOP, 49 Dem going into the Georgia run-off.
With the Democrats having won most votes of the 2 run off candidates
I don’t fancy Warnock in how that state has voted in this election. A better candidate against him, he would have lost already.
If this playoff is not about Warmnocks opponent this time, but about Dem Party hubris as the economy crisis bites voters, Warnock loses imo.
If it's GOP 50, Dem 49 going in to the runoff, the runoff will be about not letting Trump/MAGA have control of the Senate.
The voters view all other 49 as MAGA?
Indeed, even in Georgia the choice would be between a Mitt Romney or Democrat controlled Senate, the GOP needed to gain far more Senate seats for a Trumpite majority
And spraying yourself oompalumpa to enhance your chances has just gone out of fashion.
The fast food chain sent an app alert on Wednesday, saying: "It's memorial day for Kristallnacht! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!"
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
A short position (of any size) has to be maintained in some way though. There must be a bitcoin lending market.
Correct, but it’s pretty much up to them if they want to hold any actual Bitcoin on the actual blockchain, rather than virtual “Bitcoin” on their own database at their own risk.
When the price (in US$) of Bitcoin is falling, they’ll likely try and avoid keeping more than they need on a daily basis, as it’s a rapidly depreciating asset. Of course, the price could rise again, and they’ll have their arses burned for the difference.
Almost all of the crypto problems, have come from people misrepresenting their own liquidity position.
We only need @MrEd to pop up now and call it game on for Lax and we’ll be sure that NV is staying blue
Seems to be banned for some reason. Missed that. Unless posting non-stop Trumpite talking points is a banning offence I don't recall what the issue was.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
Spot on. Thank you. And all very good reasons for ensuring we don't rush to judgement.
It would help a lot if it wasn't the same numpties telling us to decarbonise as telling us nuclear power is bad.
We have nearly limitless carbon neutral energy at our fingertips in the form of nuclear power, and if it was invented today it would be seen as the saviour of the environment.
The trouble is the XR numpties and the Just Stop Oil numpties want us to decarbonise in a way that makes us all poorer and rolls our standard of living back to pre-industrial times.
We get it - we need to transition away from fossil fuels. But the way to do that is through promoting nuclear power - not hanging off gantries stopping people from driving to work.
Quiz question: how much new wind generation capacity has been added to the grid since construction started on Hinkley Point C?
I agree that some extra nuclear generation would be very useful, but it's not exactly fast to bring online, and it's a long way from being a silver bullet on its own.
As more mail ballots are counted in Nevada the electorate gets younger amd younger.
Pedanticbetting.com newswire:
Actually this is untrue, as counting continues everyone in the world - including the Nevada electorate - gets older
Greater pedantry - new (young) voters join the electorate* every day. If the number of new young voters outstrips the old dying off/retiring to Florida then the [mean age and indeed median age of the] electorate can indeed get younger.
*current electorate, not the electorate on voting day
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
Spot on. Thank you. And all very good reasons for ensuring we don't rush to judgement.
It would help a lot if it wasn't the same numpties telling us to decarbonise as telling us nuclear power is bad.
We have nearly limitless carbon neutral energy at our fingertips in the form of nuclear power, and if it was invented today it would be seen as the saviour of the environment.
The trouble is the XR numpties and the Just Stop Oil numpties want us to decarbonise in a way that makes us all poorer and rolls our standard of living back to pre-industrial times.
We get it - we need to transition away from fossil fuels. But the way to do that is through promoting nuclear power - not hanging off gantries stopping people from driving to work.
Quiz question: how much new wind generation capacity has been added to the grid since construction started on Hinkley Point C?
I agree that some extra nuclear generation would be very useful, but it's not exactly fast to bring online, and it's a long way from being a silver bullet on its own.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
For a laugh google this: "What will bitcoin be worth in 2030?".
It will either be worth $100,000ish (in today's dollars) or it will be worth nothing, i.e. it becomes a failed experiment in private (i.e. non state issued) money.
People struggle to understand a $100k bitcoin because of unit bias - there are a maximum 21,000,000 btc in circulation. There are 2,100,000,000,000 dollars in circulation - therefore if there were only 21m dollars in circulation, the value of a dollar would be $100,000.
The astronomical theoretical value of "a bitcoin" is predicated on its success as a medium of exchange and its relative scarcity.
We only need @MrEd to pop up now and call it game on for Lax and we’ll be sure that NV is staying blue
Seems to be banned for some reason. Missed that. Unless posting non-stop Trumpite talking points is a banning offence I don't recall what the issue was.
I'm assuming people have seen this but in case they haven't because the view seemed to be CCM might struggle
He’s guessing how they voted, I think polling I trust told me how they voted. 🙂
No he is not guessing.
Tens of thousands of mail in ballots have been counted and they are 2:1 Cortez.
There are approx 100,000 still to count.
Reasonable to extrapolate based on a sample of well over 10,000.
That’s true.
Unless the order of counting has a touch of
“mirage” about it. Can you be sure it hasn’t?
You give every impression of someone who is talking their book Moon. Given the amount of liquidity at 12+ for Lax, it looks like a classic value loser.
The Dems for Nevada is the same price - 1.08 - as the GOP for the House as it happens. Yet one is perceived as done deal and the other as on a knife edge.
It’s about holding nerve isn’t it?
Well I am. If the GOP somehow don't take the House I'm in the deep doo doo. All the cognescenti on here have called it, though, so I'm totally 110/75 about it.
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) might wildly jump on your exchange (FTX, for example) but that won’t affect the wider currency. Remember that only Bitcoin are traded on the blockchain, and 1BTC is always worth 1BTC.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm not sure you have adressed my question though. It could be the case that bitcoin totally fails; it ceases to exist. To understand what happens then you need to understand how short positions are maintained. It's that detail that I can't find.
Bitcoin is decentralised, and can’t fail unless every miner in the world is offline. There are no ‘positions’ on the blockchain directly, only the ledger of transfers.
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
A short position (of any size) has to be maintained in some way though. There must be a bitcoin lending market.
Correct, but it’s pretty much up to them if they want to hold any actual Bitcoin on the actual blockchain, rather than virtual “Bitcoin” on their own database at their own risk.
When the price (in US$) of Bitcoin is falling, they’ll likely try and avoid keeping more than they need on a daily basis, as it’s a rapidly depreciating asset. Of course, the price could rise again, and they’ll have their arses burned for the difference.
Almost all of the crypto problems, have come from people misrepresenting their own liquidity position.
You've not answered the question though. No criticism at all. A quite specific question.
You, me, all of us on here have access to the same information as Stop Oil. As the whole population.
It is not as though (cf smoking) there is a big conspiracy to portray climate change as anything other than a huge threat to mankind.
So why are people (you, me, (the whole population minus some greenies)) manifestly not altering our behaviour all that much. We need to jump in the car? We jump in the car. We need to fire up the computer to vanquish all on PB? We do that. We want to jet off to Ibitha or Thailand or Icelend? We do that also.
If we, the GBP, really wanted to reduce or fossil fuel consumption then we would do it. But we don't. Which does suggest we don't want to. Why? Is it a "Don't Look Up" scenario? Perhaps. Or perhaps people (cf Easter Island) are sailing, er motoring into oblivion.
But we don't want to change. And we are not changing. We do a bit, we recycle, we turn the light off as we walk out of the room, perhaps, but that's it. And tossers climbing up gantries on the M25 aren't likely to get us to change, odd moment of clarity on the way to LHR aside.
Firstly there are big campaigns to convince us global warming is a hoax. There front organisations have been cited here numerous times over the years.
Second, even Greta Thunberg acknowledges that there's a limited amount that individuals can do on their own. A lot of the necessary changes are changes of infrastructure, not personal consumer choice.
Secondly, when it comes to personal change, people rarely want to go out on a limb and appear weird by doing things differently. We saw this with the pandemic where usage of masks was low when it was only advised, but then increased when it was mandated. The assumption that most other people won't bother to change makes individuals feel that changing themselves is a waste of effort - unless the government forces everyone to comply.
We see a similar logic at play when people argue it's pointless for the UK to take action unless China does.
It seems to me that even the most committed tend to have weak intellectual spots. Some nice young people on R4 Today this morning, judgemental about things as only the young can be, suddenly got explicitly unjudgemental about people like them travelling in aeroplanes. Many make little mention of coal use elsewhere (try India, China, Poland) while wanting to attack a trivially small application to mine coal with specialist application in Cumbria.
One of the advantages of democracy as a system of government is that it doesn't rely on any one individual being 100% pure and true. It's a collective system where the institutions can survive and thrive even though the people working in them are flawed, as everyone is.
Hypocrisy is the very worst transgression in British politics, but it's unrealistic to expect advocates for a cause to be paragons of virtue themselves. If it were that simple we'd hardly have any problems at all.
Expecting those advocating for change to be perfect exemplars of that change is an attitude designed to encourage cynicism, and benefits only those for whom the status quo is perfectly fine.
Perfectly fair and good point. Without expecting perfection in conduct, it would be nice if those who lecture those they are 'othering' (older white middle class males for example) about their failures would instantiate a better way themselves. And in particular be consistent about their principles.
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
I'm an advocate of taking action on this issue. People like me have been criticized on this thread for using computers, that use electricity, but how else are we to participate in online debate? As someone who had been renting for seven years, I couldn't install solar panels even if I had the capital to afford to do so - I'm reliant on the infrastructure of electricity generation being changed on a large scale.
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
Spot on. Thank you. And all very good reasons for ensuring we don't rush to judgement.
It would help a lot if it wasn't the same numpties telling us to decarbonise as telling us nuclear power is bad.
We have nearly limitless carbon neutral energy at our fingertips in the form of nuclear power, and if it was invented today it would be seen as the saviour of the environment.
The trouble is the XR numpties and the Just Stop Oil numpties want us to decarbonise in a way that makes us all poorer and rolls our standard of living back to pre-industrial times.
We get it - we need to transition away from fossil fuels. But the way to do that is through promoting nuclear power - not hanging off gantries stopping people from driving to work.
Nuclear comes with a small but real risk of being stupendously dangerous.
It also leaves a legacy of waste for many generations ahead to have to live with.
It also requires massive subsidies. No nuclear facility has been built anywhere on the planet without massive state/consumer subsidies.
Hmm. You’ve got to know when to hold them —- and know when to fold them.
And when to walk away, and when to run. It’s standard Rabbit training.
My method called it at one pick up each 50/50 senate last Sunday night, this being my Gop pickup even with all this extra attention on the NV count nothing yet has convinced me Cortez can buck the pre election polling trend from the reputable polls against her and hold on.
Comments
The GOP would have needed to have won Arizona and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire too for Trumpites to effectively control the Senate
On the boats issue he would certainly exploit it better than Tice as RefUK leader
That he is still admired by anyone is bizarre.
My guess is they then narrowly lose GA in the runoff. The incentive to turn out is weakened a little if Senate already known to be safe.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
When people fail badly here it's like the celeb private jet to the climate change meeting syndrome; you don't have to be cynical to think their real agenda is not what they say it is. When people don't walk the talk, I don't condemn them; it's just that I don't believe them.
Not saying it’s easy by the way - just that I think there’s a way through that people can live with, and if we have cracked that then we can mobilise people.
In 2020 for example Perdue the GOP candidate got 49.7% in the first round, Ossoff the Democrat 47.9% and Hazell the Libertarian 2.4%.
In the runoff though Ossoff won with 50.6%
Similarly, the commuting archaeologist discussed earlier would more easily be able to use the train for her journey, if we collectively decided to invest more money in improving services and reducing ticket prices, as well as improving the onward public transport connections.
People do make choices, but not in the circumstances of their choosing, and I think the emphasis on personal choice over collective choice is way off. It's often made to be very difficult to do the best thing by the bigger choices made by society in the past.
What the morale is like in Donbas amongst the conscript cannon fodder we can perhaps guess.
Warnock now leads 49.6 to 48.3.
Warnock was 49.2 overnight.
No idea how many more votes to be counted.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
CNN formally projected a run-off last night - ie when Warnock was 49.2% (or maybe even lower?).
Has anyone seen anything reported re number of votes still to count?
The Ukrainian winter this year for Russian troops will have the temperature raised many degrees - by HIMARS. Each and every night.
He's just a deeply unpleasant gobshite.
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
The number of pro choice Republican primary voters is only a small minority now and they might go for Haley not Trump.
Those who want an even harder line on abortion than DeSantis and Trump would probably go for Ted Cruz who may also run again in 2024
It is a bit coincidental, isn't it? Russia's situation to the west of the river has been troubled for some time, but it seems a little odd that they announced it so soon after the election results went somewhat against them.
"The elections were robbed!"
Get your shamanic buffalo horns readied.
Funny old world.
TLDR- they put too many elections on one ballot paper.
Actually this is untrue, as counting continues everyone in the world - including the Nevada electorate - gets older
It took place in January 1992 and indeed by March 1992 Bush led Clinton and Perot.
He only lost the lead first to Perot in May and then Clinton in July
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1992_United_States_presidential_election
In theory, an exchange and traders should manage risk in the usual way, but remember there’s none of the regulation that forces actual banks in the real world to do these things. Your short position is held with the trader or exchange, who will process the contracts. We could well see the Emperor is naked.
1. Underfunding of the elections process in general. I'd guess we have more people per 1,000 electors counting the vote.
2. Very complicated ballot papers. When we have multiple votes on the same day (eg general and local elections) we use separate ballot papers and separate ballot boxes for each election. This makes it a lot easier to count the votes as the ballot paper is simpler, and your vote in the two elections can be counted simultaneously by different people. In the US, it's normal to have dozens of different votes on the same ballot - Senate, House, State Senate, State House, State judges, AG, propositions, etc. Even with machines helping the count, if there's a problem with any of the votes that requires manual intervention it slows the whole thing up.
3. Detailed rules and procedures for validating votes and detecting fraud. There seems to be a very large overhead in validating postal votes. In the UK the signature check is normally done in the days ahead of polling day, so that time on election night is saved, but often there are laws prohibiting such efficiency for counts in the US.
I'd at least start by having a separate ballot paper for the Federal, State and Country level votes.
CRICINFO’S MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS OF THE MATCH
PLAYER Team TI Runs I. Runs B. Impact Bowl I. Wkts Bo. Impact
Alex Hales ENG 107.51 86(47) 101.9 107.51 - - 0
Hardik Pandya INDIA 76.96 63(33) 67.3 77.21 0/34 - - 0.26
Jos Buttler ENG 72.35 80(49) 82.51 72.35 - - 0
Adil Rashid ENG 70.36 - - 0 1/20 2 70.36
Chris Jordan ENG 47.31 - - 0 3/43 2.58 47.31
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2022-23-1298134/england-vs-india-2nd-semi-final-1298178/match-impact-player
We have nearly limitless carbon neutral energy at our fingertips in the form of nuclear power, and if it was invented today it would be seen as the saviour of the environment.
The trouble is the XR numpties and the Just Stop Oil numpties want us to decarbonise in a way that makes us all poorer and rolls our standard of living back to pre-industrial times.
We get it - we need to transition away from fossil fuels. But the way to do that is through promoting nuclear power - not hanging off gantries stopping people from driving to work.
"at least $458,330.60"
- which is at least laughably precise
and
"Analysts predict that the price would surge to around $500,000 per coin in 2025 and $1 million per coin in 2030."
- those analysts eh.
Either they are:
Ferociously anti-Semitic
Fabulously ignorant or
Incompetent beyond belief.
Would they, I wonder, have made a similar error over depictions of the prophet, perhaps eating a chickenburger?
20k Washoe
40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
Happy to meet you halfway Driver by saying there will be a lot of different arguments put out there for voters to chew on, like the one you made. But my analysis is inflation and economy matters a lot to the GA electorate, the GOP vote was strong there this week, sub polling shows Warnock is not strongly liked, a better candidate against him Warnock likely already be out. The run off will be influenced by national concerns like worsening economy not just a battle between local candidates. I would have this 50/50 to start with and see what the month brings.
It explains rather than excuses the cockup and I would hope they learn their lesson and rely on unchecked automated systems a little less.
What a difference a day makes.
Hmm. You’ve got to know when to hold them —- and know when to fold them.
When the price (in US$) of Bitcoin is falling, they’ll likely try and avoid keeping more than they need on a daily basis, as it’s a rapidly depreciating asset. Of course, the price could rise again, and they’ll have their arses burned for the difference.
Almost all of the crypto problems, have come from people misrepresenting their own liquidity position.
Can Toxic Sue ride this buckeroo all the way up to the election?
They had no intention of making this period Boring did they?
I agree that some extra nuclear generation would be very useful, but it's not exactly fast to bring online, and it's a long way from being a silver bullet on its own.
*current electorate, not the electorate on voting day
People struggle to understand a $100k bitcoin because of unit bias - there are a maximum 21,000,000 btc in circulation. There are 2,100,000,000,000 dollars in circulation - therefore if there were only 21m dollars in circulation, the value of a dollar would be $100,000.
The astronomical theoretical value of "a bitcoin" is predicated on its success as a medium of exchange and its relative scarcity.
ETA: Rumour has it there's a reincarnation
It also leaves a legacy of waste for many generations ahead to have to live with.
It also requires massive subsidies. No nuclear facility has been built anywhere on the planet without massive state/consumer subsidies.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
My method called it at one pick up each 50/50 senate last Sunday night, this being my Gop pickup even with all this extra attention on the NV count nothing yet has convinced me Cortez can buck the pre election polling trend from the reputable polls against her and hold on.