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.
But if that is the explanation whe was there no "It's memorial day for the Berin Wall falling! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!" and no "It's memorial day for the Hitler Putsch! 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.
You've not answered the question though. No criticism at all. A quite specific question.
Okay. The blockchain is a ledger of transactions ONLY. The blockchain is gospel when it comes to ownership of Bitcoin. Anything else is not on the blockchain, and is between you and whoever you trade with. If you have a trade with, or maintain a position with someone, that’s between you and them.
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.
Used the rhyming slang for Hunt, I think
ETA: Rumour has it there's a reincarnation
Ah ok. But that'd be quite a short ban then? Or did he call OGS or RCS that?
(haven't spotted a retread - my speciality so I'll get cracking on that)
He might be able to squeak this in the first round, but it’ll be very tight.
Agreed most left to count in DeKalb if CNN is accurate ie 25k currently 85% DEM
He needs to be 82,776 ahead to go over 50% (libertarian plus write ins according to BBC totals so far), currently just short of 49,000 ahead, so a further gain of 33 to 34,000 required.
Former Green candidate Patrick Thelwell has been released on bail (police bail from what I can make out - couldn't the police find a charge sheet or was the magistrate busy?) on condition he doesn't go within 500 metres of his Britannic Glorious Majesty the King. Will they give him the king's schedule in advance so that he can make sure he complies?
There seems to have been another condition which was that he should not possess any eggs in a public place (Plod is so clever and thinks of everything!), but apparently this was changed so he can go to a shop and buy eggs to eat.
All power to his elbow. He says he understands what fascism is and what it looks like. Yet he publishes his address on his website and any knucklehead could find it in about 10 seconds flat. He's probably been bailed to live there too. If so, he needs 24-hour protection. I hope he has arranged it.
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
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.
It did say that but not in relation to winning elections. One side wanted to lose and was more interested in sending monies to the defend safe centrist seats, one side wanted to win a GE.
With regard my own position I will not vote Labour whilst the bloke in charge fails to understand the concept of a broad church.
The only way i would have ever voted for Johnson was if the Tory Manifesto was anti austerity and pro levelling up/ redistribution. IMO with SKS and RR in charge Lab will not offer this. So in that circumstance the Tories would be outflanking Lab to the left.
Even if Lab do offer some of that
1) how can i believe the serial liar SKS
2} How can i vote for the spiteful factionalist that is SKS
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.
Okay. The blockchain is a ledger of transactions ONLY. The blockchain is gospel when it comes to ownership of Bitcoin. Anything else is not on the blockchain, and is between you and whoever you trade with. If you have a trade with, or maintain a position with someone, that’s between you and them.
I presume it's therefore a shared record of (anonymous) ownership? You're beholden to the story?
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.
Go and read Jon Ralston and Sean Golonka - Nevada political journalists and numbers nerds - on twitter. It would be quite amazing if CCM didn't win, albeit narrowly, from here
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.
That’s the difference between a betting gamble, where you only need them to win by one, and the politics where they needed a bigger win to avoid being in the offices but not in power.
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.
Used the rhyming slang for Hunt, I think
ETA: Rumour has it there's a reincarnation
Ah ok. But that'd be quite a short ban then? Or did he call OGS or RCS that?
(haven't spotted a retread - my speciality so I'll get cracking on that)
One of the Sussexes, I think. Perhaps they are close personal friends of RCS?
Any chance Warnock can get to 50% and prevent the run-off? Thought it was nailed on from earlier comments.
It's unlikely, but not impossible. I think it probably ends up at 47.8ish for Warnock, but he may sneak over the line.
The Georgia SoS site has the main count complete, and gives Warnock 49.42%. But not all absentee or provisionals are counted - but the site doesn't say how many to come!
He might be able to squeak this in the first round, but it’ll be very tight.
Agreed most left to count in DeKalb if CNN is accurate ie 25k currently 85% DEM
He needs to be 82,776 ahead to go over 50% (libertarian plus write ins according to BBC totals so far), currently just short of 49,000 ahead, so a further gain of 33 to 34,000 required.
Sounds about right looks like he will get to 49.9 ish
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
I personally think as things stand Dems will win all 3 remaining seats 51/49 imo
Arizona/Nevada both a higher than 90% chance
As Warnocks lead grows i think he would win by greater than 0.5% in the run off although admittedly the less it matters to Dems the more chance Walker could sneak it.
Ideal for my 51/49 theory is NV goes to a long recount and not decided before GA run off
Former Green candidate Patrick Thelwell has been released on bail (police bail from what I can make out - couldn't the police find a charge sheet or was the magistrate busy?) on condition he doesn't go within 500 metres of his Britannic Glorious Majesty the King. Will they give him the king's schedule in advance so that he can make sure he complies?
There seems to have been another condition which was that he should not possess any eggs in a public place (Plod is so clever and thinks of everything!), but apparently this was changed so he can go to a shop and buy eggs to eat.
All power to his elbow. He says he understands what fascism is and what it looks like. Yet he publishes his address on his website and any knucklehead could find it in about 10 seconds flat. He's probably been bailed to live there too. If so, he needs 24-hour protection. I hope he has arranged it.
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
You could go back to the war victory parade when his approval rating was 93%? From there he lost.
So if Biden throws up in the Ambassadors lap a week before the runoff, called flu by white-house and a stroke by republicans and the media, you saying it does not fly in like a swan into the Georgia election?
I have plenty of other swans potential to fly in to dump on Warnock, if you want to shoot that one down.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
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.
It did say that but not in relation to winning elections. One side wanted to lose and was more interested in sending monies to the defend safe centrist seats, one side wanted to win a GE.
With regard my own position I will not vote Labour whilst the bloke in charge fails to understand the concept of a broad church.
The only way i would have ever voted for Johnson was if the Tory Manifesto was anti austerity and pro levelling up/ redistribution. IMO with SKS and RR in charge Lab will not offer this. So in that circumstance the Tories would be outflanking Lab to the left.
Even if Lab do offer some of that
1) how can i believe the serial liar SKS
2} How can i vote for the spiteful factionalist that is SKS
I think you're offbeam in abandoning Labour. I'm really invested in seeing a Labour government after so many years of the Tories. And these Tories are particularly dreadful. Could be SKS (who I didn't choose, btw, preferred Nandy) will disappoint in power but I want to see him have the chance to do so or (hopefully) not. Sick of losing elections.
But fair enough, you have to go with how you see it. I'd feel all wrong lecturing you, given you've been in the Party for so long, knocked on doors, campaigned, all of that. Me, I am a proper lefty in the sort of things I believe in, and I've voted Labour always always always, but I didn't join till 2017 and all I've done (apart from the voting) is gone to half a dozen meetings and manned a pie stall. Dilettante.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Alternatively she gets a squeaky win and Kelly a comfortable one.
I think she wins.
She definitely wins imo, as does the GOP AG, the question is the Senate. Kelly looks very likely but its well worth watching the split of the next tranche of ballots
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
No doubt @UKLabour Shadow Secretary State for Health Wes Streeting will be on the picket line with the nurses. Otherwise his leadership hopes will be extinguished @theRCN
Former Green candidate Patrick Thelwell has been released on bail (police bail from what I can make out - couldn't the police find a charge sheet or was the magistrate busy?) on condition he doesn't go within 500 metres of his Britannic Glorious Majesty the King. Will they give him the king's schedule in advance so that he can make sure he complies?
There seems to have been another condition which was that he should not possess any eggs in a public place (Plod is so clever and thinks of everything!), but apparently this was changed so he can go to a shop and buy eggs to eat.
All power to his elbow. He says he understands what fascism is and what it looks like. Yet he publishes his address on his website and any knucklehead could find it in about 10 seconds flat. He's probably been bailed to live there too. If so, he needs 24-hour protection. I hope he has arranged it.
A Green candidate who isn't a vegan?
'Mr Thelwell - who said he has spoken to his "concerned" mother since his release - believes the UK needs to be "abolished" and that its assets should be dissolved and "given as reparations to help the world and build resilience to the climate breakout that we have caused".'
He threw *four* eggs, none on target, which seems poor.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Every single remaining vote has to be signature verified so they'll do shit loads then count. Democracy can wait with all the other types of government in the lobby
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.
Do you trust the owners/founders of Bitcoin to stick with the 21,000,000 limit? It would be tempting to "print" themselves a few extra Bitcoin on the side.
And once the limit is reached, who pays for Bitcoin transactions, since there won't be any miners doing the calculations?
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Every single remaining vote has to be signature verified so they'll do shit loads then count. Democracy can wait with all the other types of government in the lobby
It's a rubbish sytem
Florida got theirs done in half a day, so there's no reason the other states can't do the same. The empty hours breed speculation and rumour. Tsk
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.
Used the rhyming slang for Hunt, I think
ETA: Rumour has it there's a reincarnation
Ah ok. But that'd be quite a short ban then? Or did he call OGS or RCS that?
(haven't spotted a retread - my speciality so I'll get cracking on that)
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
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.
Go and read Jon Ralston and Sean Golonka - Nevada political journalists and numbers nerds - on twitter. It would be quite amazing if CCM didn't win, albeit narrowly, from here
Alternatively, when I looked Sunday, this race was different than many other tight ones, as the decent pollsters had her av 6% behind for a long time up to voting.
Her defeat will be attributed to less Latino votes this time than last time.
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
There is huge potential worldwide for wind and solar power. Transmission losses may be an issue for economic use, but when you look at how quickly, for example, Egypt developed its wind industry, there are lessons there for many.
Storage outcomes being developed would be far, far better for the world than nuclear. And probably get delivered in a quarter of the time of nuclear.
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.
Used the rhyming slang for Hunt, I think
ETA: Rumour has it there's a reincarnation
Ah ok. But that'd be quite a short ban then? Or did he call OGS or RCS that?
(haven't spotted a retread - my speciality so I'll get cracking on that)
One of the Sussexes, I think. Perhaps they are close personal friends of RCS?
That must be it, yes. They probably bump into each other all the time. California's a small place.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
CNN says 16% remain in Clark that would be 85k is that out of date?
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
Colton Lochhead @ColtonLochhead · 19m We may get an idea of how many ballots are still coming in based on what Clark and Washoe receive via USPS today, and Clark is scheduled to give an update at 11:30 am today. We're also expecting more results to be posted later today, so stay tuned for that
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.
It did say that but not in relation to winning elections. One side wanted to lose and was more interested in sending monies to the defend safe centrist seats, one side wanted to win a GE.
With regard my own position I will not vote Labour whilst the bloke in charge fails to understand the concept of a broad church.
The only way i would have ever voted for Johnson was if the Tory Manifesto was anti austerity and pro levelling up/ redistribution. IMO with SKS and RR in charge Lab will not offer this. So in that circumstance the Tories would be outflanking Lab to the left.
Even if Lab do offer some of that
1) how can i believe the serial liar SKS
2} How can i vote for the spiteful factionalist that is SKS
You're being suckered by the Tories mate if you think they have any intention of outflanking Labour on the left.
I acknowledge your intense dislike of Starmer but ffs find a home other than the Tories if you really can't vote Labour.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
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.
Do you trust the owners/founders of Bitcoin to stick with the 21,000,000 limit? It would be tempting to "print" themselves a few extra Bitcoin on the side.
And once the limit is reached, who pays for Bitcoin transactions, since there won't be any miners doing the calculations?
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
The big problem nuclear has had, historically, is that it's always ended up being
(a) Late and overbudget (b) Annoyingly unreliable when installed
In theory, you'd think a nuclear plant would manage 90% uptime, with it only brought off-line for refuelling or scheduled maintenance.
But in reality, uptimes are often terrible because radioactive material throws off alpha particles (and more) and that energy is absorbed by containment vessels, pipes, etc. This makes stuff brittle and prone to leaking and cracking and the like. With the consequence that uptimes are often only in the 60s. (And for some particularly troublesome plants, it's even worse).
US inflation falls a 'wee bit' and the markets all react positively with the £ up at $1.17
This is good news and it looks as if the Fed are indicating lower interest rate rises
It also has to be said that inflation in April looks like it could be considerably less than now which should give pensioners and those on benefits an above inflation rise at the time . If Sunak and Hunt were really brave they would not grant the triple lock, but politics and polls as they are, I think it is unimaginable that both pensions and benefits will not rise less than the September inflation figure in April
Of course lower inflation will assist in mitigating public sector pay rises
I hope this news on inflation today is the start of a trend, not just for Sunak, but more importantly for the rest of the country
I'm quite interested as a spectator to watch the wild gyrations of Bitcoin and it's fellows.
I have no financial interest, nor will I ever in it. I think it's worth precisely zero.
I wonder though if anyone would care to explain Bitcoin settlement regulations to me? If all the exchanges/banks/sharabangs break down then perhaps a negative number of bitcoins might 'exist'. What happens then?
The actual number of Bitcoin stored on the blockchain won’t change, except for ticking up slowly as it always does.
Whether any random exchange holding “Bitcoin” on behalf of their customers, actually has any in the first place, is the question to which we might be about to find out the answer.
Basically, if you don’t have your own Bitcoin wallet address, then you’re relying on someone else’s systems, servers, and honesty.
Suppose though that nobody can access their Bitcoins, and suppose further that I have sold one bitcoin short - covered by some sort of repo type deal. How does that play out?
I'll tell you how I think it might - BC goes nearly to zero, then to nearly infinity and then firmly to zero.
It doesn’t work like that. Most of the Bitcoin transactions are not actually on the blockchain itself, but rather through the exchange. The price (in US$) 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.
Do you trust the owners/founders of Bitcoin to stick with the 21,000,000 limit? It would be tempting to "print" themselves a few extra Bitcoin on the side.
And once the limit is reached, who pays for Bitcoin transactions, since there won't be any miners doing the calculations?
The 21 million can't change, unless you plan on forking the currency. It's baked in to tens of thousands of miners around the world.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
Yestedays Washoe and Clark add ons broke a lot more favourably than those totals though
My assumption is if that pattern is followed 20k+ win
I think mail ins and on the day voting is same as 2020 ie former much more fav for Dems latter for GOP
We will see and DYOR but why else would Dems be 1.09 and GOP 7.8 in NV
Still wondering how Russia is managing to cross the river without HIMARS destroying bridges and ferries (as they did earlier in the campaign, when the land Ukraine held was significantly further away).
Now, it could be that the ferries are also packed with civilian hostages. But that shouldn't stop them sinking them on the return journey or the moment they dock.
Still makes me think a deal has been done.
Which in the great scheme of things would encourage that there is some degree of rationalisation at work between the adversaries.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
CNN says 16% remain in Clark that would be 85k is that out of date?
Also says 14% left in Washoe that is only 21k
have you a different source for whats left?
sorry no. i'm just fishing around and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. dangerous on the internet I know.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
Yestedays Washoe and Clark add ons broke a lot more favourably than those totals though
My assumption is if that pattern is followed 20k+ win
I think mail ins and on the day voting is same as 2020 ie former much more fav for Dems latter for GOP
We will see and DYOR but why else would Dems be 1.09 and GOP 7.8 in NV
The next drop should give a good steer. Dems may well win, but i think 20k is too high. Under 10,000 for me either way
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?
It's probably a script that uses a standard holiday calendar for the app country location and no one thought to make exclusions.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
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?
It's probably a script that uses a standard holiday calendar for the app country location and no one thought to make exclusions.
UK to get one tomorrow then!
Surely every country has a ‘bad’ commemoration at some point during the year, when quiet reflection is more important than rampant consumerism?
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
CNN says 16% remain in Clark that would be 85k is that out of date?
Also says 14% left in Washoe that is only 21k
have you a different source for whats left?
sorry no. i'm just fishing around and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. dangerous on the internet I know.
Sean Golonka @s_golonka · 3m I've seen conflicting info about how many mail ballots are outstanding in Washoe County, and wanted to clear this up.
Data from the county shows that as of Nov. 9, Washoe has received 102.4k mail ballots. It has reported results for 60.8k mail ballots. That's 41.6k uncounted.
Still wondering how Russia is managing to cross the river without HIMARS destroying bridges and ferries (as they did earlier in the campaign, when the land Ukraine held was significantly further away).
Now, it could be that the ferries are also packed with civilian hostages. But that shouldn't stop them sinking them on the return journey or the moment they dock.
Still makes me think a deal has been done.
Which in the great scheme of things would encourage that there is some degree of rationalisation at work between the adversaries.
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.
It did say that but not in relation to winning elections. One side wanted to lose and was more interested in sending monies to the defend safe centrist seats, one side wanted to win a GE.
With regard my own position I will not vote Labour whilst the bloke in charge fails to understand the concept of a broad church.
The only way i would have ever voted for Johnson was if the Tory Manifesto was anti austerity and pro levelling up/ redistribution. IMO with SKS and RR in charge Lab will not offer this. So in that circumstance the Tories would be outflanking Lab to the left.
Even if Lab do offer some of that
1) how can i believe the serial liar SKS
2} How can i vote for the spiteful factionalist that is SKS
You're being suckered by the Tories mate if you think they have any intention of outflanking Labour on the left.
I acknowledge your intense dislike of Starmer but ffs find a home other than the Tories if you really can't vote Labour.
95%+ likely I wont vote Tory and that I vote for neither of the 2 main Parties 100% certainty i wont vote for SKS.
Would you vote for an anti immigration, NHS privatising, Brexit supporting, pro austerity, climate protester arresting, non worker supporting Labour?
If so is it because of some kind of blind faith or is your favorite colour rosette red no matter wat they offer?
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
Yes, but im questioning whether they break THAT heavily in 2 closely fought counties. I agree mail in favours Dems but, for example if they fell 60 40 in Clark, 55 45 is Washoe it would be very very tight with a handful of red county votes to also come in. We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours. Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite. 15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
Hobbs is surely over the line in AZ, Maricopa and Pima are the major uncounted counties which is Phoenix and Tuscon, both are heavily Dem. Goodby Kari Lake, don't let the toilet lid hit you as you get flushed.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
America has so many of these weird dysfunctionalities. Despite being a marvellous country
And some of them seem trivially easy to fix: like this
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
CNN says 16% remain in Clark that would be 85k is that out of date?
Also says 14% left in Washoe that is only 21k
have you a different source for whats left?
sorry no. i'm just fishing around and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. dangerous on the internet I know.
Sean Golonka @s_golonka · 3m I've seen conflicting info about how many mail ballots are outstanding in Washoe County, and wanted to clear this up.
Data from the county shows that as of Nov. 9, Washoe has received 102.4k mail ballots. It has reported results for 60.8k mail ballots. That's 41.6k uncounted.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
CNN says 16% remain in Clark that would be 85k is that out of date?
Also says 14% left in Washoe that is only 21k
have you a different source for whats left?
sorry no. i'm just fishing around and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. dangerous on the internet I know.
Sean Golonka @s_golonka · 3m I've seen conflicting info about how many mail ballots are outstanding in Washoe County, and wanted to clear this up.
Data from the county shows that as of Nov. 9, Washoe has received 102.4k mail ballots. It has reported results for 60.8k mail ballots. That's 41.6k uncounted.
Hobbs is surely over the line in AZ, Maricopa and Pima are the major uncounted counties which is Phoenix and Tuscon, both are heavily Dem. Goodby Kari Lake, don't let the toilet lid hit you as you get flushed.
That was my presumption - Phoenix and Tucson still to count = obvious Dem win. But plenty of American political experts on Twitter say this is genuinely knife edge stuff
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
The big problem nuclear has had, historically, is that it's always ended up being
(a) Late and overbudget (b) Annoyingly unreliable when installed
In theory, you'd think a nuclear plant would manage 90% uptime, with it only brought off-line for refuelling or scheduled maintenance.
But in reality, uptimes are often terrible because radioactive material throws off alpha particles (and more) and that energy is absorbed by containment vessels, pipes, etc. This makes stuff brittle and prone to leaking and cracking and the like. With the consequence that uptimes are often only in the 60s. (And for some particularly troublesome plants, it's even worse).
Both fair points. You only need to look at France this year to get that.
I'm still of the view that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix going forward, along with renewables, in order to meet global power needs. I'm not convinced we can power the world entirely through renewables, and I'd prefer nuclear to fossil fuels.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
Yes, that is an odd rule. In the grand scheme of things people needing to get them in a bit earlier seems reasonable against waiting many days after for an uncertain amount.
Hobbs is surely over the line in AZ, Maricopa and Pima are the major uncounted counties which is Phoenix and Tuscon, both are heavily Dem. Goodby Kari Lake, don't let the toilet lid hit you as you get flushed.
That was my presumption - Phoenix and Tucson still to count = obvious Dem win. But plenty of American political experts on Twitter say this is genuinely knife edge stuff
Hobbs is surely over the line in AZ, Maricopa and Pima are the major uncounted counties which is Phoenix and Tuscon, both are heavily Dem. Goodby Kari Lake, don't let the toilet lid hit you as you get flushed.
The remaining votes are dropped off on the day, lates and those put into 'box 3' for tabulation when theres a machine error, all favour republicans. Its the opposite situation to early mail in counting in other states.
Arizona swung towards Trump with late counted votes in 2020 in Az. Not enough, obviously.
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.
There are better ways to decarbonise.
Do any of those better ways involve hanging off gantries stopping people from going to work, and harming the economy with what I will politely call acts of economic vandalism?
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
There is huge potential worldwide for wind and solar power. Transmission losses may be an issue for economic use, but when you look at how quickly, for example, Egypt developed its wind industry, there are lessons there for many.
Storage outcomes being developed would be far, far better for the world than nuclear. And probably get delivered in a quarter of the time of nuclear.
It's a race between developing cheap enough bulk storage technology and fusion. My guess is that fusion gets there first. But in any event there will be room for both.
Hobbs is surely over the line in AZ, Maricopa and Pima are the major uncounted counties which is Phoenix and Tuscon, both are heavily Dem. Goodby Kari Lake, don't let the toilet lid hit you as you get flushed.
That was my presumption - Phoenix and Tucson still to count = obvious Dem win. But plenty of American political experts on Twitter say this is genuinely knife edge stuff
Blue tick wanker attention seeking. This is over.
I refer you to the Honourable PB-er for @dyedwoolie
He seems to know more about their voting system then I do, and more than I care to know, TBH. What a mess
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
Yes, but im questioning whether they break THAT heavily in 2 closely fought counties. I agree mail in favours Dems but, for example if they fell 60 40 in Clark, 55 45 is Washoe it would be very very tight with a handful of red county votes to also come in. We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours. Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite. 15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
Yes I wouldnt be taking short prices on CCM but some of these mail in ballots do seem to have been counted rather than estimated. I'd like to see the results for a few thousand to get an idea of how they are splitting though.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
America has so many of these weird dysfunctionalities. Despite being a marvellous country
And some of them seem trivially easy to fix: like this
You're assuming that politicians would want to fix them. With every aspect of voting and counting contested in swing states, getting both sides agreement on practical measures is far from simple.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
Yes, but im questioning whether they break THAT heavily in 2 closely fought counties. I agree mail in favours Dems but, for example if they fell 60 40 in Clark, 55 45 is Washoe it would be very very tight with a handful of red county votes to also come in. We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours. Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite. 15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
The last 2 mail ballot drops in Washoe and Clark were each +5000 gains for CCM.
If that keeps up my Dems by 10,000 will be way to skinny.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
America has so many of these weird dysfunctionalities. Despite being a marvellous country
And some of them seem trivially easy to fix: like this
You're assuming that politicians would want to fix them. With every aspect of voting and counting contested in swing states, getting both sides agreement on practical measures is far from simple.
For sure. I should have said "trivially easy to fix if American politics is sane". Which it isn't
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
Yes, but im questioning whether they break THAT heavily in 2 closely fought counties. I agree mail in favours Dems but, for example if they fell 60 40 in Clark, 55 45 is Washoe it would be very very tight with a handful of red county votes to also come in. We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours. Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite. 15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
Yes I wouldnt be taking short prices on CCM but some of these mail in ballots do seem to have been counted rather than estimated. I'd like to see the results for a few thousand to get an idea of how they are splitting though.
15k in Clark yesterday broke
10.3k Dem 4.7k GOP
Washoe i forget exact figures yesterday but broke more than 60/40 I think
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.
Kari Lake's crazy world of fun latest. She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
WTF is happening in Arizona? They've been stuck on "70% votes counted" for 36 hours. American elections are bonkers. Have they just given up?
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
Votes that arrive until Saturday still have to be counted, apparently, provided that they are date stamped for election day. It really is absurd. Normally, when there is a clear winner, we just ignore the actual counting but for several cycles in a row now the TCTC results have been critical to power and the deficiencies of the system laid bare for all to see.
Yes, that is an odd rule. In the grand scheme of things people needing to get them in a bit earlier seems reasonable against waiting many days after for an uncertain amount.
Thr American postal system is fucked at the beat of times but DeJoy has actively sabotaged it.
Actually would be +£140 up now if Laxalt takes Nevada, but he won't.
I'll be about £150 down I think.
On the bright side I'm pretty green on my Presidential positions, and there are fantastic Trump/Biden bets there, so that's something to build on over the next year to recover from.
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.
"It's Ramadan. Treat yourself......". Even advertising and PR people know that not all dates and occasions are alike.
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.
90k Clark 20k Washoe 40 to 50k elsewhere
I reckon
"In the rural counties, which lean heavily GOP, it's harder to say exactly what's left. From counties we've talked to, there are: - 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko - Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
same source: "There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties: - 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county -40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
Re Washoe Mail ballots still favour Dems as shown by yesterdays counted there
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
That would require them to win the 110,000 remaining about 72,500 to 37,500 which seems unlikely given Clark is currently 51 46 and Washoe is near enough 50 50
but the outstanding mail-in votes are expected to break much more heavily for CCM than current ratios.
Yes, but im questioning whether they break THAT heavily in 2 closely fought counties. I agree mail in favours Dems but, for example if they fell 60 40 in Clark, 55 45 is Washoe it would be very very tight with a handful of red county votes to also come in. We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours. Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite. 15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
Could be but hopefully not.
I only have £50 at 2.4 and obvs very happy with that.
Next 15k batch from Clark to be reported before 5pm ET apparently
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.
Comments
and no
"It's memorial day for the Hitler Putsch! Treat yourself with more tender cheese on your crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!"?
(haven't spotted a retread - my speciality so I'll get cracking on that)
There seems to have been another condition which was that he should not possess any eggs in a public place (Plod is so clever and thinks of everything!), but apparently this was changed so he can go to a shop and buy eggs to eat.
All power to his elbow. He says he understands what fascism is and what it looks like. Yet he publishes his address on his website and any knucklehead could find it in about 10 seconds flat. He's probably been bailed to live there too. If so, he needs 24-hour protection. I hope he has arranged it.
I'm pro nuclear, globally, because I think it's the only way to meet global demand for energy efficiently - though the UK alone may work better with a combination of wind and tidal.
The point is pretty much everyone agrees on the need to transition away from fossil fuels in a timely manner, without damaging the economy and making people poorer. Which really makes you wonder what the just stop oil nutters' point is.
With regard my own position I will not vote Labour whilst the bloke in charge fails to understand the concept of a broad church.
The only way i would have ever voted for Johnson was if the Tory Manifesto was anti austerity and pro levelling up/ redistribution. IMO with SKS and RR in charge Lab will not offer this. So in that circumstance the Tories would be outflanking Lab to the left.
Even if Lab do offer some of that
1) how can i believe the serial liar SKS
2} How can i vote for the spiteful factionalist that is SKS
https://twitter.com/s_golonka/status/1590737282654695425?s=20&t=_eWdNq6lXJSR3FFa6-c5hQ
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1590596892966023171?s=20&t=_eWdNq6lXJSR3FFa6-c5hQ
- 1k mail ballots left to count in Elko
- Douglas may have more. They released ~1k yesterday, but clerk told us they received "thousands" on Tuesday."
https://twitter.com/ColtonLochhead/status/1590749136722481154
4:52 PM · Nov 10, 2022
·Twitter Web App
"There are roughly 110k mail ballots that we know of that need to be counted in Nevada's two largest counties:
- 70k ballots in Clark County, Nevada's most populous and most Dem-leaning county
-40k ballots in Washoe County, where partisan registration is fairly close"
New @instituteforgov comment piece from me on Sunak's cabinet committees
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/what-rishi-sunaks-cabinet-committees-reveal-about-how-he-will-govern
Always a danger in getting sucked in to committee Kremlinology here, but I think they tell us several things about how he wants to govern
https://twitter.com/alexgathomas/status/1590680877490524161
Arizona/Nevada both a higher than 90% chance
As Warnocks lead grows i think he would win by greater than 0.5% in the run off although admittedly the less it matters to Dems the more chance Walker could sneak it.
Ideal for my 51/49 theory is NV goes to a long recount and not decided before GA run off
She says 375,000 votes to be counted of which she expects 60 to 80% and a clear win.
IFFFFFF this were the case and carried down ticket, Masters overhauls Kelly on high 60s% of the remaining
Do your own snort and dismiss........
Id suggest if the next dump is 65% plus GOP then a bet on Masters is reasonable. If its not then obviously its Lake being Lake and carry on regardless
I recommend nothing and am posting purely for reference
So if Biden throws up in the Ambassadors lap a week before the runoff, called flu by white-house and a stroke by republicans and the media, you saying it does not fly in like a swan into the Georgia election?
I have plenty of other swans potential to fly in to dump on Warnock, if you want to shoot that one down.
Not getting to the 50% opens it all up again.
I think she wins.
You can begin to see why voters (of all stripes) get suspicious. Just count all the frigging votes within 12 hours, like almost every other democracy on the planet
But fair enough, you have to go with how you see it. I'd feel all wrong lecturing you, given you've been in the Party for so long, knocked on doors, campaigned, all of that. Me, I am a proper lefty in the sort of things I believe in, and I've voted Labour always always always, but I didn't join till 2017 and all I've done (apart from the voting) is gone to half a dozen meetings and manned a pie stall. Dilettante.
Tempered by how low they were when he took over and not got much of a honeymoon bounce,
Now the question is, with budget coming, the bounce there has been, how honeycomb is it?
I reckon Dems win by over 20k at end of NV count
No doubt @UKLabour Shadow Secretary State for Health Wes Streeting will be on the picket line with the nurses. Otherwise his leadership hopes will be extinguished @theRCN
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1590726956794155009
He threw *four* eggs, none on target, which seems poor.
I suspect Ms Lake makes it by a percent or two, but that Mr Masters is three points or so adrift.
https://youtu.be/ekESZIn4y18
It would be tempting to "print" themselves a few extra Bitcoin on the side.
And once the limit is reached, who pays for Bitcoin transactions, since there won't be any miners doing the calculations?
November 9, 2022 https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1590750376118341632/photo/1
Florida got theirs done in half a day, so there's no reason the other states can't do the same. The empty hours breed speculation and rumour. Tsk
Her defeat will be attributed to less Latino votes this time than last time.
Storage outcomes being developed would be far, far better for the world than nuclear. And probably get delivered in a quarter of the time of nuclear.
Also says 14% left in Washoe that is only 21k
have you a different source for whats left?
@ColtonLochhead
·
19m
We may get an idea of how many ballots are still coming in based on what Clark and Washoe receive via USPS today, and Clark is scheduled to give an update at 11:30 am today. We're also expecting more results to be posted later today, so stay tuned for that
so 19.30 our time for that update.
You’ve got a 47 in a previous post I think you meant 49?
I acknowledge your intense dislike of Starmer but ffs find a home other than the Tories if you really can't vote Labour.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating (9-10 November):
Approve: 31% (-1)
Disapprove: 30% (+6)
Net: +1% (-7)
Changes +/- 6 November
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-9-10-november-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1590756227294068738/photo/1
Absolutely astronomical transaction fees.
(a) Late and overbudget
(b) Annoyingly unreliable when installed
In theory, you'd think a nuclear plant would manage 90% uptime, with it only brought off-line for refuelling or scheduled maintenance.
But in reality, uptimes are often terrible because radioactive material throws off alpha particles (and more) and that energy is absorbed by containment vessels, pipes, etc. This makes stuff brittle and prone to leaking and cracking and the like. With the consequence that uptimes are often only in the 60s. (And for some particularly troublesome plants, it's even worse).
US inflation falls a 'wee bit' and the markets all react positively with the £ up at $1.17
This is good news and it looks as if the Fed are indicating lower interest rate rises
It also has to be said that inflation in April looks like it could be considerably less than now which should give pensioners and those on benefits an above inflation rise at the time
.
If Sunak and Hunt were really brave they would not grant the triple lock, but politics and polls as they are, I think it is unimaginable that both pensions and benefits will not rise less than the September inflation figure in April
Of course lower inflation will assist in mitigating public sector pay rises
I hope this news on inflation today is the start of a trend, not just for Sunak, but more importantly for the rest of the country
My assumption is if that pattern is followed 20k+ win
I think mail ins and on the day voting is same as 2020 ie former much more fav for Dems latter for GOP
We will see and DYOR but why else would Dems be 1.09 and GOP 7.8 in NV
Now, it could be that the ferries are also packed with civilian hostages. But that shouldn't stop them sinking them on the return journey or the moment they dock.
Still makes me think a deal has been done.
Which in the great scheme of things would encourage that there is some degree of rationalisation at work between the adversaries.
https://twitter.com/mytweetb2b/status/1590756702072483840
The absolute lad.
Surely every country has a ‘bad’ commemoration at some point during the year, when quiet reflection is more important than rampant consumerism?
Sean Golonka
@s_golonka
·
3m
I've seen conflicting info about how many mail ballots are outstanding in Washoe County, and wanted to clear this up.
Data from the county shows that as of Nov. 9, Washoe has received 102.4k mail ballots. It has reported results for 60.8k mail ballots. That's 41.6k uncounted.
https://twitter.com/s_golonka
Would you vote for an anti immigration, NHS privatising, Brexit supporting, pro austerity, climate protester arresting, non worker supporting Labour?
If so is it because of some kind of blind faith or is your favorite colour rosette red no matter wat they offer?
We need to see how they are dropping over the next 48 hours.
Dems slight favourite imo, not overwhelming favourite.
15,000 is a big deficit to overturn if the estimates of remaining ballots are even a few thousand too high it might be the difference
And some of them seem trivially easy to fix: like this
November 9, 2022 42,388 31,898 28,184 102,470
I got on at 2.4 on Wednesday morning
I'm still of the view that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix going forward, along with renewables, in order to meet global power needs. I'm not convinced we can power the world entirely through renewables, and I'd prefer nuclear to fossil fuels.
Washoe
Candidate(s) % Votes
Cortez Masto
Incumbent
48.8%
73,200
Laxalt
48.6%
72,844
None of these candidates
1.0%
1,479
Est. vote in: 86%
Updated 7:07 a.m. ET, Nov. 10
Arizona swung towards Trump with late counted votes in 2020 in Az. Not enough, obviously.
But in any event there will be room for both.
He seems to know more about their voting system then I do, and more than I care to know, TBH. What a mess
Boebert
Incumbent
50.1%
157,743
386 ahead
Frisch
49.9%
157,357
Est. vote in: 96%
Updated 12:27 p.m. ET, Nov 10
If that keeps up my Dems by 10,000 will be way to skinny.
Governor: Arizona
Candidate(s) % Votes
Hobbs 50.3% 953,783
13,067 ahead
Lake 49.7% 940,716
10.3k Dem
4.7k GOP
Washoe i forget exact figures yesterday but broke more than 60/40 I think
It's been stuck there for 24 hours
I'll be about £150 down I think.
On the bright side I'm pretty green on my Presidential positions, and there are fantastic Trump/Biden bets there, so that's something to build on over the next year to recover from.
Even advertising and PR people know that not all dates and occasions are alike.
I only have £50 at 2.4 and obvs very happy with that.
Next 15k batch from Clark to be reported before 5pm ET apparently
new thread