It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
I think you've misrepresented the reaction - there were multiple comments pointing out an issue with it was not any form analysis in itself, but that some of the benefits (and you would probably claim, negatives) are not tangible or measurable in a simple way. So if one relies on some kind of spreadsheet accounting of it you get the kind of bullcrap like criticising the cost of a missle versus the cost of what it blew up (even though what they hit varies and some will be more or less the cost of the missle, before you even get to the intangible analysis of the benefits of helping prevent invasion).
As for the Afghan question, life is unfair. But that's nothing more than an argument to never do anything anywhere ever, because states are not consistently moral, that if we cannot or do not do everything we should not do anything.
Missiles do cost money. Of course the value of the ordinance sent to Ukraine needs at least to be monitored - presumably most of it requires replacing, or its absence reduces the UK's military capability.
.
Congratulations on missing the point - the objection I made, and it was very clear, was not about the counting the cost of a missle, but doing so in a way which is patently bullshit. Eg, someone complainaing about blowing up a 10k truck with a 50k missle (and someone did do that), even though another one might concievably blow up a tank worth 200k (these are not real numbers) as well, so simply looking at these things on a line by line financial basis doesn't make sense without looking at the whole picture, and the whole picture also includes the non financial context
In any case this is a bit of a red herring, as you're still not arguing on a cost benefit way either, though you are trying to present it that way, you are just arguing that no one should ever do anything in these situations because it is not consistently applied.
Why not just say that, instead of pretending it is about cost/benefit analysis? That's logically coherent, perhaps more so than those arguing occasional intervention. Muddling yourself up by introducing a suggestion it might be ok if the costs were different just confuses your message.
Am I to believe if we didn't face a cost of living crisis and if we had stayed in Afghanistan you'd support Ukrainian intervention? Come on, that't not believable.
Japan has taken a look at what’s happened in Ukraine, conducted a CBA, and has doubled its defence budget overnight. Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.
TBF. Boris Johnson instituted a vast number of CBA's across a wide range of departments and topics. Unfortunately, his stood for Can't Be Arsed.
TBH you have just lost the biggest game of your life after scoring a hattrick, the last thing you want is some non-football person coming up acting all matey matey telling you well played, you did yourself proud.
If players do want to talk, it is to other professionals, who know what its like and been through similar things.
That was stunning sporting drama. On the biggest stage in world sport. Phenomenal
And it had the perfect ending. A cruel French defeat
The curse of Leondamus worked in a particularly cruel manner this time.
I actually lost track of who I was cursing. Magnificent
I feel like you feel after a fucking amazing movie, only more so
Sport that good is wild. The match basically ended with the two greatest players in the world - Messi and Mbappe - taking endless shots at each other. Like two great heavyweights in a titanic slugfest
That was stunning sporting drama. On the biggest stage in world sport. Phenomenal
And it had the perfect ending. A cruel French defeat
The curse of Leondamus worked in a particularly cruel manner this time.
I actually lost track of who I was cursing. Magnificent
I feel like you feel after a fucking amazing movie, only more so
Sport that good is wild. The match basically ended with the two greatest players in the world - Messi and Mbappe - taking endless shots at each other. Like two great heavyweights in a titanic slugfest
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
There’s no point because the strategic costs of Russia winning a so horrendous that it is a waste of time analysing. We are all in.
How do you work that one out? Russian 'victory' even over the entirety of Ukraine would mean possession for Russia of a rebellious, resentful colony with a population that largely detests it. It would be a deeply unfortunate outcome but not one where I can see any unthinkable strategic cost to UK interests.
Because you are a dick. If ukraine falls to russia then putin will not stop there. Stop being an apologist for him. Both he and many in his inner circle have said they want all of eastern europe back. If ukraine falls he would be invading somewhere else.....sheesh its like explaining algebra to the newly born with you. No wonder you were called putinguy
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
What is OnlyFans?
It's a place for buying and selling cooling equipment. Understandable you haven't heard of it, it's more relevant in the summer.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
What is OnlyFans?
A platform particularly prioritising young entrepreneurs.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
Dignataries coming out for the presentation look awfully solemn about it. Macron, sure, but the others?
Dont wish to boast but in one of my previous jobs I gave out the medals to a national sport championship and was really nervous and keen to not disrespect any player , winner or loser so it will be the same for these I imagine.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
I think you've misrepresented the reaction - there were multiple comments pointing out an issue with it was not any form analysis in itself, but that some of the benefits (and you would probably claim, negatives) are not tangible or measurable in a simple way. So if one relies on some kind of spreadsheet accounting of it you get the kind of bullcrap like criticising the cost of a missle versus the cost of what it blew up (even though what they hit varies and some will be more or less the cost of the missle, before you even get to the intangible analysis of the benefits of helping prevent invasion).
As for the Afghan question, life is unfair. But that's nothing more than an argument to never do anything anywhere ever, because states are not consistently moral, that if we cannot or do not do everything we should not do anything.
Missiles do cost money. Of course the value of the ordinance sent to Ukraine needs at least to be monitored - presumably most of it requires replacing, or its absence reduces the UK's military capability.
.
Congratulations on missing the point - the objection I made, and it was very clear, was not about the counting the cost of a missle, but doing so in a way which is patently bullshit. Eg, someone complainaing about blowing up a 10k truck with a 50k missle (and someone did do that), even though another one might concievably blow up a tank worth 200k (these are not real numbers) as well, so simply looking at these things on a line by line financial basis doesn't make sense without looking at the whole picture, and the whole picture also includes the non financial context
In any case this is a bit of a red herring, as you're still not arguing on a cost benefit way either, though you are trying to present it that way, you are just arguing that no one should ever do anything in these situations because it is not consistently applied.
Why not just say that, instead of pretending it is about cost/benefit analysis? That's logically coherent, perhaps more so than those arguing occasional intervention. Muddling yourself up by introducing a suggestion it might be ok if the costs were different just confuses your message.
Am I to believe if we didn't face a cost of living crisis and if we had stayed in Afghanistan you'd support Ukrainian intervention? Come on, that't not believable.
Japan has taken a look at what’s happened in Ukraine, conducted a CBA, and has doubled its defence budget overnight. Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.
TBF. Boris Johnson instituted a vast number of CBA's across a wide range of departments and topics. Unfortunately, his stood for Can't Be Arsed.
Whilst I agree with you in general, it's a little unfair to label Johnson in that manner when the topic is Ukraine. He very much could be arsed about what was going on, and acted in a strong and timely manner. Many other world 'leaders' did not.
(Hopefully even those who hate Johnson would be able to reluctantly agree with this.)
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
I think you've misrepresented the reaction - there were multiple comments pointing out an issue with it was not any form analysis in itself, but that some of the benefits (and you would probably claim, negatives) are not tangible or measurable in a simple way. So if one relies on some kind of spreadsheet accounting of it you get the kind of bullcrap like criticising the cost of a missle versus the cost of what it blew up (even though what they hit varies and some will be more or less the cost of the missle, before you even get to the intangible analysis of the benefits of helping prevent invasion).
As for the Afghan question, life is unfair. But that's nothing more than an argument to never do anything anywhere ever, because states are not consistently moral, that if we cannot or do not do everything we should not do anything.
Missiles do cost money. Of course the value of the ordinance sent to Ukraine needs at least to be monitored - presumably most of it requires replacing, or its absence reduces the UK's military capability.
.
Congratulations on missing the point - the objection I made, and it was very clear, was not about the counting the cost of a missle, but doing so in a way which is patently bullshit. Eg, someone complainaing about blowing up a 10k truck with a 50k missle (and someone did do that), even though another one might concievably blow up a tank worth 200k (these are not real numbers) as well, so simply looking at these things on a line by line financial basis doesn't make sense without looking at the whole picture, and the whole picture also includes the non financial context
In any case this is a bit of a red herring, as you're still not arguing on a cost benefit way either, though you are trying to present it that way, you are just arguing that no one should ever do anything in these situations because it is not consistently applied.
Why not just say that, instead of pretending it is about cost/benefit analysis? That's logically coherent, perhaps more so than those arguing occasional intervention. Muddling yourself up by introducing a suggestion it might be ok if the costs were different just confuses your message.
Am I to believe if we didn't face a cost of living crisis and if we had stayed in Afghanistan you'd support Ukrainian intervention? Come on, that't not believable.
Japan has taken a look at what’s happened in Ukraine, conducted a CBA, and has doubled its defence budget overnight. Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.
TBF. Boris Johnson instituted a vast number of CBA's across a wide range of departments and topics. Unfortunately, his stood for Can't Be Arsed.
Whilst I agree with you in general, it's a little unfair to label Johnson in that manner when the topic is Ukraine. He very much could be arsed about what was going on, and acted in a strong and timely manner. Many other world 'leaders' did not.
(Hopefully even those who hate Johnson would be able to reluctantly agree with this.)
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
In the letter’s case it’s probably going to be the other way around, judging by Musk’s recent floundering around.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
Guardian is a publisher. Twitter claims to be a platform. Platforms are meant to be neutral.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
But the Guardian (and all Fleet Street papers on their websites) does credit other papers with stories and interviews, and link to them. Twitter's statement as posted here seems to rule out all links, not just those that attack Twitter.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
Meanwhile Twitter is going well on the Free Speech front...
We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter.
Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.
We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.
Why should Twitter - privately owned - host people who are actively trying to bring down Twitter by promoting alternatives, and doing it on Twitter?
Let's say you own a pub. Are you morally obliged to let people into your pub who just stand there chanting "this pub is shit, and the owner is a freak, go to the Dog and Duck, we've got free doughnuts"?
No, you are not obliged to do that. And Musk is entitled to kick the Mastodon weirdos off the forum he owns
I seemed to remember not that long ago when people defended banning of people on twitter under the guise of its a private company they can do what they want, it isn't the town square, now the same people seem upset that the same private company is doing the same things.
I am pretty sure other social media outlets have in the past (and present) have had policies about links to other social media and services e.g. pretty sure any mentions of an OnlyFans will get you the ban hammer from Instagram, SnapChat etc.
I believe Twitch are also very controlling of what you can and can't link to.
I seemed to remember not that long ago people getting upset about the banning of people on twitter and bellowing about censorship, now the same people are defending the banning of people on twitter cos it's a private company.
A chacun ses souvenirs.
Yes, but they started it
This is like Germans complaining about British bombers over Hamburg
This is the idiocy of partisanship. It gets people to cheer on bad things for a race to the bottom.
I don't think anyone could sensibly describe me as part of the woke left "they", so is my criticism supposed to be swatted off too?
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
Going into abstract poetry because you can't make a logical argument.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
Going into abstract poetry because you can't make a logical argument.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
The defining feature of the web is the hyperlink. I'm going to have to set up my own website.
That's essentially the choice people have. Put in the effort to use the freedoms of the internet, or accept private companies telling them what is allowed.
I am not sure why the PB consensus seems to be that we should no longer even subject our foreign policy toward Ukraine to any form of cost/benefit analysis. It would be a colossal dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to analyse this. If the reason is humanitarian, can anyone tell me why it's perfectly acceptable to leave Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban?
I think you've misrepresented the reaction - there were multiple comments pointing out an issue with it was not any form analysis in itself, but that some of the benefits (and you would probably claim, negatives) are not tangible or measurable in a simple way. So if one relies on some kind of spreadsheet accounting of it you get the kind of bullcrap like criticising the cost of a missle versus the cost of what it blew up (even though what they hit varies and some will be more or less the cost of the missle, before you even get to the intangible analysis of the benefits of helping prevent invasion).
As for the Afghan question, life is unfair. But that's nothing more than an argument to never do anything anywhere ever, because states are not consistently moral, that if we cannot or do not do everything we should not do anything.
Missiles do cost money. Of course the value of the ordinance sent to Ukraine needs at least to be monitored - presumably most of it requires replacing, or its absence reduces the UK's military capability.
.
Congratulations on missing the point - the objection I made, and it was very clear, was not about the counting the cost of a missle, but doing so in a way which is patently bullshit. Eg, someone complainaing about blowing up a 10k truck with a 50k missle (and someone did do that), even though another one might concievably blow up a tank worth 200k (these are not real numbers) as well, so simply looking at these things on a line by line financial basis doesn't make sense without looking at the whole picture, and the whole picture also includes the non financial context
In any case this is a bit of a red herring, as you're still not arguing on a cost benefit way either, though you are trying to present it that way, you are just arguing that no one should ever do anything in these situations because it is not consistently applied.
Why not just say that, instead of pretending it is about cost/benefit analysis? That's logically coherent, perhaps more so than those arguing occasional intervention. Muddling yourself up by introducing a suggestion it might be ok if the costs were different just confuses your message.
Am I to believe if we didn't face a cost of living crisis and if we had stayed in Afghanistan you'd support Ukrainian intervention? Come on, that't not believable.
Japan has taken a look at what’s happened in Ukraine, conducted a CBA, and has doubled its defence budget overnight. Rishi’s a bit slow off the mark.
TBF. Boris Johnson instituted a vast number of CBA's across a wide range of departments and topics. Unfortunately, his stood for Can't Be Arsed.
Whilst I agree with you in general, it's a little unfair to label Johnson in that manner when the topic is Ukraine. He very much could be arsed about what was going on, and acted in a strong and timely manner. Many other world 'leaders' did not.
(Hopefully even those who hate Johnson would be able to reluctantly agree with this.)
Fair enough. And Vaccination. Pity about the rest.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
Guardian is a publisher. Twitter claims to be a platform. Platforms are meant to be neutral.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
Going into abstract poetry because you can't make a logical argument.
That obedience doesn't imply bravery or "grit" is self-evident and doesn't require a logical argument, even if an entire raft of sealions say they want one.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
Guardian is a publisher. Twitter claims to be a platform. Platforms are meant to be neutral.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
Indeed. Although I've been wearing the T-shirt all along. With vest, shirt, big jumper, fleece, coat and woolly hat, too, mind.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Not only is the World Cup the greatest single sporting trophy in the world (runner up: 100m Olympic gold), and not only one North Americans don’t understand, but also one regularly - and now for the first time in ages - won by an “American” team.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
Indeed. Although I've been wearing the T-shirt all along. With vest, shirt, big jumper, fleece, coat and woolly hat, too, mind.
My discovery this season has been the t-shirt (or long sleeved version) under the shirt. Still missing for me were the long johns to warm the legs.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
One of the great games of football, as we all hoped it would be.
As for the departing snow, it's barely a week ago it was falling out of the winter night covering everything and for some in my part of the world, the sheer sense of wonder at this new experience. We may love snow or hate it but if you've never seen it before...
A week on and it's a grey icy slush clinging on as the rain and warmth pounds it to oblivion. Whatever charm it had has gone - it's the past, it's yesterday and we've moved on and it must.
Yet this recent cold spell will live in the memory not just for the snow but the sparkling clear days and winter sunshine which stood in contrast to the usual mild and wet murk of the British midwinter.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
Going into abstract poetry because you can't make a logical argument.
That obedience doesn't imply bravery or "grit" is self-evident and doesn't require a logical argument, even if an entire raft of sealions say they want one.
It's nothing to do with obedience. We aren't talking about the cucks following a petulant dictator like Putin here. We are talking about a democratically supported decision to protect our fellow citizens lives during a temporary period of national emergency.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
In footballing terms it has been a brilliant World Cup and that was an epic, thrilling, final. Stunning stuff.
Maybe a Winter World Cup isn't too bad an idea? It's been the most goals ever. Can't see that repeated in a stifling N American Summer.
Yeah I think the same. I have a theory. The players who weren't injured came into the tournament at peak match fitness and it really showed. They were sharp and fast.
Contrast that to the summer tournaments when they're noticeably more sluggish, at least to start with.
Of course, being at that kind of peak physical fitness also makes you more susceptible to injury: it's part of the paradox. Like thoroughbred race horses.
But also relatively cool pitches as you say. It was a thrilling tournament and an epic final to conclude it.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
Turnout in the Tunisian parliamentary election yesterday was 9%.
Kais Saied, the president who crafted it, worked for years as a law professor. Clearly he is a genius not only at helmsmanship and political reform but also at legitimacy engineering and public relations more generally.
I wonder whether he will stay in office, because that's an epic slap in the face that the population just gave him.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It already has. It now had basketball in its sights. Gridiron is way out in front but is also facing steep declines.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Unpopular take, but you have to hand it to FIFA - in terms of growing the sport, they are superb. They might be corrupt as fuck, but this World Cup has turned into a dream showcase for football, to take it even further. The winter timing has emerged as a masterstroke
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
I think we've had near enough a 50°C temperature range in Hampshire this year.
Max at 39C and min at -8C, so far.
Yes, that will be matched across much of the south of England, I suspect. The departing cold spell has been the most memorable in December since 2010 not least for the longevity of snow lying and the number of days of prolonged cold.
Only one actual ice day in my part of London (last Sunday) where the temperature stayed below freezing all day - most days we've had an hour or so in early afternoon where the temperature crept a degree above freezing.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
I think we've had near enough a 50°C temperature range in Hampshire this year.
Max at 39C and min at -8C, so far.
Yes, that will be matched across much of the south of England, I suspect. The departing cold spell has been the most memorable in December since 2010 not least for the longevity of snow lying and the number of days of prolonged cold.
Only one actual ice day in my part of London (last Sunday) where the temperature stayed below freezing all day - most days we've had an hour or so in early afternoon where the temperature crept a degree above freezing.
No snow here at all; just a bit of ground frost at dawn. But warmer now, but horribly wet today.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Unpopular take, but you have to hand it to FIFA - in terms of growing the sport, they are superb. They might be corrupt as fuck, but this World Cup has turned into a dream showcase for football, to take it even further. The winter timing has emerged as a masterstroke
They must be chuffed in Geneva
As long as they don't follow through on the stupid idea to have a World Cup every 2 years.
A huge part of the attraction of a World Cup is the relative rarity of it.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Unpopular take, but you have to hand it to FIFA - in terms of growing the sport, they are superb. They might be corrupt as fuck, but this World Cup has turned into a dream showcase for football, to take it even further. The winter timing has emerged as a masterstroke
They must be chuffed in Geneva
As long as they don't follow through on the stupid idea to have a World Cup every 2 years.
A huge part of the attraction of a World Cup is the relative rarity of it.
That can't happen because it would fuck with European leagues and the European champ tourney. And UEFA and the big leagues are easily as powerful as FIFA
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
I’m not sure Musk had learned how to deal with Europeans yet. His whole business frame of reference is the US.
In all the excitement I missed it's predicted to be 13°C tomorrow up here. That's some thaw.
Just rejoice at that news. A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
I have a new favourite genre of Tweeter, the American sports pundit who has just clocked on to soccerball and is now suggesting great new ways to improve the sport like abolishing the "shootouts" and having goals the size of Manhattan and three halves of six minutes each
Although I've been reading a lot of the US coverage to catch up with match reports I've missed whilst teaching. The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers). It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera. No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion". They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
Yes, I agree. The NYT/Athletic is particularly good - they've hired a lot of the best British writers. They can afford it. It's the casual viewers who make stunningly naff remarks
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
It has, but it should set its sights on overtaking basketball and ice hockey first.
Ice hockey is way behind both baseball and soccer.
Not by revenue it’s not. The NHL is still way ahead of MLS
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.
If you were the richest man in the world (or 2nd richest man), wouldn't you take the opportunity to go to every big event that interested you? After you buy x houses, cars, boats, yachts, experiences are the big thing that I think most people would constantly splurge on (plus they get invited to loads of them anyway).
Back to politics and let's make some time next year to chew over the Luxembourg political scene ahead of their next general election.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
All very interesting, but it has fewer electors than for Essex county council
Comments
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Unfortunately, his stood for Can't Be Arsed.
https://twitter.com/ClutchPointsApp/status/1604540469815365633?t=z5-MQsZfRrk12aH-1Hjdlg&s=09
If players do want to talk, it is to other professionals, who know what its like and been through similar things.
I feel like you feel after a fucking amazing movie, only more so
Sport that good is wild. The match basically ended with the two greatest players in the world - Messi and Mbappe - taking endless shots at each other. Like two great heavyweights in a titanic slugfest
Wow
Plenty of rumours swirl around Macron and famous sportsmen
OnlyHotties, on the other hand...
That's some thaw.
(Hopefully even those who hate Johnson would be able to reluctantly agree with this.)
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Am I correct in seeing a little blip in electricity usage whilst the final was on?
https://grid.iamkate.com/
@CricketWartime
The first non-Essex CCC player to score a hat trick in an association football World Cup Final.
https://twitter.com/CricketWartime/status/1604541979437801480
I don't think anyone could sensibly describe me as part of the woke left "they", so is my criticism supposed to be swatted off too?
For the fallen and the weak;
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing , and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
That's essentially the choice people have. Put in the effort to use the freedoms of the internet, or accept private companies telling them what is allowed.
Pity about the rest.
A wonderful game of football, the right eventual result despite me having supported France throughout, and 13C tomorrow. T-shirt coming out of the drawer this evening. And f you Putin.
Simone Perrotta 2006.
Jimmy Armfield was born in Denton as well.
With vest, shirt, big jumper, fleece, coat and woolly hat, too, mind.
The level of analysis and tactical nous puts our newspaper reporting to shame. (At least amongst their dedicated soccer writers).
It's almost as if they analyse it as a sport not a soap opera.
No one ever seems to win or lose because of more or not enough "passion".
They don't just tell you what happened, but endeavour to explain why it did.
I'd have preferred a last second Argentinian winner for 4/3 rather than penalties.
That 'robe' they made Messi wear.
One of the great games of football, as we all hoped it would be.
As for the departing snow, it's barely a week ago it was falling out of the winter night covering everything and for some in my part of the world, the sheer sense of wonder at this new experience. We may love snow or hate it but if you've never seen it before...
A week on and it's a grey icy slush clinging on as the rain and warmth pounds it to oblivion. Whatever charm it had has gone - it's the past, it's yesterday and we've moved on and it must.
Yet this recent cold spell will live in the memory not just for the snow but the sparkling clear days and winter sunshine which stood in contrast to the usual mild and wet murk of the British midwinter.
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1604559225883168768
In footballing terms it has been a brilliant World Cup and that was an epic, thrilling, final. Stunning stuff.
It's been the most goals ever. Can't see that repeated in a stifling N American Summer.
"There must be in-groups whom the rules protect but do not bind, alongside out-groups whom the rules bind but do not protect."
Contrast that to the summer tournaments when they're noticeably more sluggish, at least to start with.
Of course, being at that kind of peak physical fitness also makes you more susceptible to injury: it's part of the paradox. Like thoroughbred race horses.
But also relatively cool pitches as you say. It was a thrilling tournament and an epic final to conclude it.
Football has a good chance of overtaking baseball in the USA
Kais Saied, the president who crafted it, worked for years as a law professor. Clearly he is a genius not only at helmsmanship and political reform but also at legitimacy engineering and public relations more generally.
I wonder whether he will stay in office, because that's an epic slap in the face that the population just gave him.
Max at 39C and min at -8C, so far.
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1604560984961699842?s=20&t=qqcESgrQ0NrCKb1QGwbBNA
https://twitter.com/AdamMaina_/status/1604330231112007680?s=20&t=qqcESgrQ0NrCKb1QGwbBNA
An invite to the Vatican for devout Roman Catholic Messi and the team surely on the cards
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue
They must be chuffed in Geneva
Only one actual ice day in my part of London (last Sunday) where the temperature stayed below freezing all day - most days we've had an hour or so in early afternoon where the temperature crept a degree above freezing.
Although hats off to guys fixing high voltage power lines in 50 mph winds. No strikes from them.
Which helps his popularity, as they aren't one of the big clubs.
The three party Government headed by Xavier Bettel polled 47.6% in the October 2018 election but the latest polls have the combined vote share of the Social Democrats, Democratic Party and Greens at 50.2%.
The opposition centre-right Christian Social People's Party is on 23.3%, five points down from 2018 but is still the party attracting the largest vote share. They polled 1,800 out of a population of 608,000 - that would be akin to polling a million people for an opinion poll here.
Any attempt to remove my tweets that link to my other social media accounts, not violating any law, would actually make #twitter an editorial media, and no longer a social media platform, with civil and criminal liability for *any* illegal content therein.
A huge part of the attraction of a World Cup is the relative rarity of it.
The economic centre of the NHL is north of the border.
Liability, he says? It's hardly as if courts in France or any other country keep throwing authors of tweets in jail for anything or making financial awards against them in civil cases.