Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
ChatGPT produces middling undergraduate level work that could be a bare minimum pass, at best, if it could learn to use citations and cite work properly.
This is more an indictment of the way undergraduate courses are taught than anything else, to be honest - a simple regurgitation of what other people have said on the subject is enough to get you through an undergrad essay, without any real thought or analysis, and that's what ChatGPT provides.
As I understand it, ChatGPT is probabilistic, in that each additional word it types is based on the probability of it being the right word that follows on from the previous word, based on its training data. I.e. it has ten million sources telling it that if you type "roses are" then it will type "red" as the next word -- its level of comprehension is no greater than that. It's essentially doing mad-libs based on huge statistical data.
Which brings us back to the topic of undergraduate essays. Are they really much more than the above? One of the really terrible things I've noticed about recent undergrads (maybe all undergrads - maybe I'm just old, and this is as it always was) is their inability to analyse and criticise what they're told - hence why woke-ism spreads rampant across campuses - because undergrads accept it uncritically and regurgitate what they've been told.
University education needs to move from one where you regurgitate others work (with citations) and pass this regurgitation off as any real "knowledge" of the subject, and towards one where individual and critical thinking skills are more valued. Do that, and university education might be valuable. Don't, and you might as well use the chatbot.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
That's true regarding Special Relativity. Somebody else would have sussed it in the end. Lorentz, for example, was almost there. Nevertheless, it was a huge conceptual step, and Einstein was the one to take it.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
I thought that they had been made ready over the past year, with the only reason for their not being sent the need for a German government export licence?
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
I thought that they had been made ready over the past year, with the only reason for their not being sent the need for a German government export licence?
That would have been the logical thing to do. Sadly, it looks as though they did not:
"German arms firm Rheinmetall says Leopard tanks can’t be ready for Ukraine until 2024"
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
If we do that and fail to capture the CO2 that is released, then the ice caps will, slowly* but surely, melt entirely, raising the sea level by around 60m. The UK, if it still exists as a political entity, will become an archipelago.
* On a timescale of a couple of millennia.
Hang on - you're making a category error. Over time a greater and greater proportion of fossil fuels will be used for non-fuel purposes.
If oil is extracted and used to make plastic, which is then sequestered, then the net carbon emissions are essentially zero. (By the way, biodegradable is BAD. That means the bonds in the plastics break down, releasing carbon.)
If the released carbon is in the form of diamond, happy days!
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
ChatGPT produces middling undergraduate level work that could be a bare minimum pass, at best, if it could learn to use citations and cite work properly.
This is more an indictment of the way undergraduate courses are taught than anything else, to be honest - a simple regurgitation of what other people have said on the subject is enough to get you through an undergrad essay, without any real thought or analysis, and that's what ChatGPT provides.
As I understand it, ChatGPT is probabilistic, in that each additional word it types is based on the probability of it being the right word that follows on from the previous word, based on its training data. I.e. it has ten million sources telling it that if you type "roses are" then it will type "red" as the next word -- its level of comprehension is no greater than that. It's essentially doing mad-libs based on huge statistical data.
Which brings us back to the topic of undergraduate essays. Are they really much more than the above? One of the really terrible things I've noticed about recent undergrads (maybe all undergrads - maybe I'm just old, and this is as it always was) is their inability to analyse and criticise what they're told - hence why woke-ism spreads rampant across campuses - because undergrads accept it uncritically and regurgitate what they've been told.
University education needs to move from one where you regurgitate others work (with citations) and pass this regurgitation off as any real "knowledge" of the subject, and towards one where individual and critical thinking skills are more valued. Do that, and university education might be valuable. Don't, and you might as well use the chatbot.
Of course, there are probably other things are work. Students pretty quickly understand which instructor invites argument and who doesn't. A lot of them won't take up other people's time with passionate debate. And sometimes, you just don't care enough about a subject to engage.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
I thought that they had been made ready over the past year, with the only reason for their not being sent the need for a German government export licence?
That would have been the logical thing to do. Sadly, it looks as though they did not:
"German arms firm Rheinmetall says Leopard tanks can’t be ready for Ukraine until 2024"
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Humans are going to use up all the extractable fossil fuels. It's a question of over what length of time.
If we do that and fail to capture the CO2 that is released, then the ice caps will, slowly* but surely, melt entirely, raising the sea level by around 60m. The UK, if it still exists as a political entity, will become an archipelago.
* On a timescale of a couple of millennia.
Hang on - you're making a category error. Over time a greater and greater proportion of fossil fuels will be used for non-fuel purposes.
If oil is extracted and used to make plastic, which is then sequestered, then the net carbon emissions are essentially zero. (By the way, biodegradable is BAD. That means the bonds in the plastics break down, releasing carbon.)
If the released carbon is in the form of diamond, happy days!
Not so happy if the required pressure and temperature to form that diamond is 5 GPa at 1500 °C.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
You're projecting your own thoughts on the situation and ignoring the evidence of what has happened.
When the US sent 155mm artillery then Germany did likewise. When the US sent MLRS systems then Germany did likewise. When the US sent IFVs then Germany did likewise. Both countries are now sending Patriot air defence systems.
Evidence and experience suggests that the most likely outcome is that tomorrow will see the announcement of tanks being sent by both Germany and the US.
The public statements of reluctance are frustrating, but they seem like they get to the right place in the end.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, thanks. I'm just looking at what's happening.
BTW, did you hear the German company Rheinmetall saying it'll take a year to get tanks ready for Ukraine? That's bullshit, that is. Just send them some working ones from the Bundeswehr and see Rheinmetall get the replacements ready in a couple of months.
This matters. The Ukrainians need these tools, and not providing them may cause Ukraine to lose the war, but will certainly leads to more Ukrainian deaths.
I thought that they had been made ready over the past year, with the only reason for their not being sent the need for a German government export licence?
That would have been the logical thing to do. Sadly, it looks as though they did not:
"German arms firm Rheinmetall says Leopard tanks can’t be ready for Ukraine until 2024"
There could be a compromise there. If the tanks are allegedly not operational, sending them to Ukraine can't be escalatory...
As I've said passim, the Bundeswehr should send squads of their operational tanks. Then we'll see how long it takes Rheinmetall to refurbish replacements...
This is actually a serious option: Ukraine needs kit now. How much do we risk not being able to deal with threats in the next year or two, compared to the threat Russia imminently poses? Or more bluntly: why do we have this kit except for it to be used?
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
I am not saying that is likely to happen. I am saying it can produce undergraduate essays on all those things.
As for Einstein and Origin consider the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat. We knew about them and studied them for centuries and got nowhere without computers. Then we solved them. If you read the intro to the second ed of OoS, Darwin got a lot of letters after the first edn daying Hey, I thought of that before you. Instead of saying No you didn't he says Yes, and so did all these other guys, and points to 10 or 15 complete statements of the theory prior to his first edition. So it is perfectly possible Chat GPT could have scraped those off the internet and restated them. Not qualified to comment on Einstein, but there's a widely held opinion that the Special Theory was bloomin' obvious all along and if albert hadn't come up with it someone else would have done. Someone else could be working quite closely with GPT these days.
That's true regarding Special Relativity. Somebody else would have sussed it in the end. Lorentz, for example, was almost there. Nevertheless, it was a huge conceptual step, and Einstein was the one to take it.
Politico.com - She Fixes Cars. Can She Fix Congress’ Elitism Problem? Marie Gluesenkamp Perez thinks Democrats have a big problem relating to the middle class. Because they’re not part of it.
Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was a stunning winner in the 2022 midterms. The millennial auto shop owner flipped a Washington district that both the state and national Democratic parties considered unwinnable. . . . .
Natalie Fertig: You’re part of a 200-plus person Democratic caucus. How do you see yourself creating an understanding of the middle class in that caucus and getting middle-class laws passed?
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: It feels like the Democratic Party, especially wealthy leadership in the Democratic Party, has taken it upon themselves to be champions of the poorest of the poor. And I think that’s great, but I think that it has left a lot of people in the middle class feeling like people don’t understand the issues we’re facing [including] Catalytic converter theft. Bad infrastructure. Shit roads.
Fertig: I’m laughing at the catalytic converter theft, because I feel like that’s like all my dad was talking about when I was home over the summer [in Perez's congressional district WA03].
Gluesenkamp Perez: Oh, yeah. I replaced hundreds of catalytic converters last year. It’s like $40 worth of platinum, and it’s a $1,300 repair. That just eviscerated so many people’s emergency funds all across the district. . . .
Gluesenkamp Perez: I don’t think that your traditional pedigreed Democrats are the solution to Trump extremism. I think that a lot of these traditional Democrats, the m.o. is to go into a community and start explaining shit. Nobody likes that. . . . .
Fertig: Do you feel like the things that made success in your district are very specific to you and your district, or do you think there’s a model there that Democrats could use in other rural districts?
Gluesenkamp Perez: We need more and more normal people to run for Congress. We need more people that work in the trades.
When I was thinking about running, I interviewed some jackass, fancy consultant. I told him about myself, and he was like, “Well, I’ve worked with worse.” When I said I had a son, he chortled, and was like, “Hope you don’t want to see your kid again.”
He told me to talk to the governor and see if I could get appointed to some committee on aging and disability, or something like that, and build up a resume that would allow me to run successfully later on.
I’m just like, “How many other women has that happened to, you know these jackass men telling them not to run?” And I’m like, “Well, I guess you’re the expert, you’re wearing the suit.” . . .
BREAKING: Boris Johnson referred to the parliamentary commissioner for standards after @TheTimes revealed on Sunday that he accepted £800,000 from a millionaire foreign national who was his distant cousin.
'ALISTER Jack has said the trans community was “not part of my thinking at all” when it came to his decision to block gender reform in Scotland.
Instead, the Scottish Secretary insisted his unprecedented use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act was “entirely” for legal reasons. [...]
Asked if the fact that trans people had not been a “part of his thinking” when he decided to block gender reform was a startling admission, Jack said: “You’re putting words into my mouth.”
Told that he was in fact being quoted directly, he went on: “I said in taking the decision I have every sympathy for the trans community and people who want to change gender. That is not the issue here. [...].'
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
'ALISTER Jack has said the trans community was “not part of my thinking at all” when it came to his decision to block gender reform in Scotland.
Instead, the Scottish Secretary insisted his unprecedented use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act was “entirely” for legal reasons. [...]
Asked if the fact that trans people had not been a “part of his thinking” when he decided to block gender reform was a startling admission, Jack said: “You’re putting words into my mouth.”
Told that he was in fact being quoted directly, he went on: “I said in taking the decision I have every sympathy for the trans community and people who want to change gender. That is not the issue here. [...].'
No, the issue is Jocks with Cocks in Frocks. AKA "Men"
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
a) Sawant noticed same thing as I did, namely that her support has been deflating to point that she barely survived December 2021 recall vote.
b) Her political operation in Seattle has always depended on money from unknown sources (New York City trust funders most likely) to pay for field army; and that by going national/global, she can expand what may well be a declining fiscal basis?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
Er, that makes it fourth, shirley?
Edit: I see my response is second only to SandyRentool's
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
Shredded Wheat has to be the best cereal; all the rest are ultra-processed foods, many stuffed with sugar.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
and/or/both? Do you need both both and and?
Add Black pudding and fried tattie scones , mushrooms , roasted tomatoes or beans and your talking
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
and/or/both? Do you need both both and and?
Add Black pudding and fried tattie scones , mushrooms , roasted tomatoes or beans and your talking
Hard to find the old style black pudding though. I think you're right about beans, but we'd embarrass the purists.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
Porridge is King, as you, as a Scot, know all too well Malcolm. Excellent roughage, fills you up for hours so the chocolate biscuit tin is raided less often and tastes delicious. I love mine with sweet Cinnamon. Doesn't need sugar as already tastes very sweet.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
'ALISTER Jack has said the trans community was “not part of my thinking at all” when it came to his decision to block gender reform in Scotland.
Instead, the Scottish Secretary insisted his unprecedented use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act was “entirely” for legal reasons. [...]
Asked if the fact that trans people had not been a “part of his thinking” when he decided to block gender reform was a startling admission, Jack said: “You’re putting words into my mouth.”
Told that he was in fact being quoted directly, he went on: “I said in taking the decision I have every sympathy for the trans community and people who want to change gender. That is not the issue here. [...].'
No, the issue is Jocks with Cocks in Frocks. AKA "Men"
The issue with the Ukraine conflict is that nobody seems to envisage a conclusion to it. When it looked like the invasion was collapsing, there was a noticeable step off the gas in foreign support for Ukraine. Now it looks like Russia might have some counter-offensives planned, the aid seems to be gathering steam again. It feels like this conflict is being kept in stalemate. It may be in America's interests for this war to continue for the foreseeable future - it weakens a geostrategic opponent, removes a competitor to America in the energy markets, and makes Ukraine a de facto protectorate of America. It is certainly not in the interests of Europe however, where energy costs will hollow out all the European economies, and, as noted earlier, military ordnance is draining out of Europe's small armies at a rate of knots. Europe needs a swift conclusion to this conflict.
Energy costs are dropping. No one is going to start buying Russian gas again - probably not until the end of fossil fuel era, which isn't long now.
Europe is sending (mostly) old military equipment that was taking up warehouse space. It is being used to destroy the military capability of the only significant military threat to Europe - the Russian military.
Your assessment is based on what I believe to be several false premises. Unreliable renewables bake in fossil fuel use for the foreseeable - I don't know which shiny new technology is getting you excited about 'the end of the fossil fuel era', but what's been shared on here so far has not withstood any scrutiny. These include batteries, hydrogen, interconnectors with the continent, etc.
No country is a significant military threat till you oppose them. America isn't a military threat because we do what they want. That's fine until there's a clear divergence of interests. Our armed forces need to be able to mount a credible defence against any threat, not just the bogeyman du jour.
If there is a tolerable peace accepted on all sides, it would be foolish not to import cheap gas from Russia and just let China and India guzzle it instead. However, domestically produced energy, renewable or fossil fuel-produced, is to be preferred - we must not get dependent on Russia for energy again.
Yes, we will still need gas for a while - possibly a long while. But it's the fact that we will need less (as long as we can store it), and can buy it elsewhere via LNG ships etc. Russia has proven itself to be a massively unreliable supplier, and many of their customers will not want to put themselves in this position again when Russia decides to go for Ukraine again. Or Estonia. Or Poland.
They've used gas as a weapon. Many countries will be very hesitant to load that weapon again.
China and India are *not* 'guzzling' Russian gas at the moment - because there's only a tiny pipeline to them from Russia, and not one from Russia's western gas fields. And Russia has very limited LNG export facilities - and they're expensive to make. Worse, Russia's relative lack of year-round ice-free coastline is also problematic. To give you an idea, a new pipeline to China is expected to be completed *this decade*. These projects have long-timescales and are massively expensive.
Russia has a very poor internal gas pipeline network. There is essentially no way for them to get gas from the West of the country (where the vast majority of production is) to the East.
It is worth noting that Power of Siberia (the Russo-China pipeline) only ran at about 50% of capacity last year - 20BCM vs 40BCM.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
and/or/both? Do you need both both and and?
Add Black pudding and fried tattie scones , mushrooms , roasted tomatoes or beans and your talking
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Not for the first time you seem to be unable to read what I have written. Where have I ever said "Germany can only send tanks if the US does"?? I have written that this is the German government position (or at least Scholz's) up to now, a position which I actually disagree with. But I don't think that it is completely irrational and that there is no conceivable reason for it, as you seem to.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Doesn’t the Abrams take about five hours of maintenance for every hour of operation ? Other way round for the Bradleys.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Not for the first time you seem to be unable to read what I have written. Where have I ever said "Germany can only send tanks if the US does"?? I have written that this is the German government position (or at least Scholz's) up to now, a position which I actually disagree with. But I don't think that it is completely irrational and that there is no conceivable reason for it, as you seem to.
There are plenty of conceivable reasons for it. They're just not good reasons IMO.
Other countries are sending MBTs, or want to (and it seems some are being blocked by Germany).
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
How much of the money you have made do you put down to being a humanities student?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Own-brand is often better if there's a difference. Own-brand yeast extract for example is much tastier than Unilever's version called Marmite. I've passed the blindfold test for distinguishing between them. I question whether many could for Weetabix. If they could, it would probably mostly be because of sugar and salt.
Some badly raised brats swear blind there's a huge difference between baked beans with this packaging and baked beans with that packaging. What a country. Five different looking tins of baked beans on the shelf, aimed at different market segments. Is this a comedy? No, it's real life. About time the west collapsed really. Perhaps the haricot beans are grown in five different types of field - upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, and lower. Classy.
I've always had nothing but contempt for those who turn the bottles and packets in kitchens and bathrooms to show the labels off to visitors. Talk about a nation of petits bourgeois.
PS Before anyone points it out, yes I know much of the third world is the same. Let it all collapse...
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Own-brand is often better if there's a difference. Own-brand yeast extract for example is much tastier than Unilever's version called Marmite. I've passed the blindfold test for distinguishing between them. I question whether many could for Weetabix. If they could, it would probably mostly be because of sugar and salt.
Some badly raised brats swear blind there's a huge difference between baked beans with this packaging and baked beans with that packaging. What a country. Five different looking tins of baked beans on the shelf, aimed at different market segments. About time the west collapsed really.
As opposed to russia where the shelves are marked as next order arriving in six months. Own brand baked beans are better than the promise of baked beans. Start queueing now comrade
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Own-brand is often better if there's a difference. Own-brand yeast extract for example is much tastier than Unilever's version called Marmite. I've passed the blindfold test for distinguishing between them. I question whether many could for Weetabix. If they could, it would probably mostly be because of sugar and salt.
Some badly raised brats swear blind there's a huge difference between baked beans with this packaging and baked beans with that packaging. What a country. Five different looking tins of baked beans on the shelf, aimed at different market segments. About time the west collapsed really.
As opposed to russia where the shelves are marked as next order arriving in six months. Own brand baked beans are better than the promise of baked beans. Start queueing now comrade
As one of the better paid “elite” trolls sent to crack really gnarly challenges like PB I assume he gets access to nomenclatura supplies (including a choice of marmite and own brand) so it’s probably not much of an issue.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
even then means the slices dry out quicker, and unsliced loaf you just slice off a half inch and discard,for the remaining loaf the bread is still lovely and moist
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Soy sauce on scrambled eggs; Tabasco on fried eggs
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
even then means the slices dry out quicker, and unsliced loaf you just slice off a half inch and discard,for the remaining loaf the bread is still lovely and moist
Our son gets through about 10 slices of toast a day so the slight drying out is if anything a feature rather than a bug.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Soy sauce on scrambled eggs; Tabasco on fried eggs
*chef’s kiss*
Smoked salmon with scrambled eggs.
Soy sauce - just a dash - for mushrooms sautéed in butter.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone had this?
I believe it's called getting old.
Is that it? I find it hard to believe. I know plenty of people older than me who don’t go into REM sleep 50 minutes after dinner
This is the weird thing. It’s not an elderly nap. It’s proper sleep. As I say I feel fine otherwise so it’s a curiosity which is sometimes irritating. No more than that
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Doesn’t the Abrams take about five hours of maintenance for every hour of operation ? Other way round for the Bradleys.
The Leopard makes way more sense logistically.
I think the Abrams gets 3 gallons per mile. That's thirsty.
And a massive issue is that it uses that much fuel even when idling. (Both the above from @MarkHertling, I think)
Not an insurmountable issue (after all, the US copes with it), but it is a big issue if fuel supply to the front becomes disrupted.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone had this?
I believe it's called getting old.
I’d check my glucose tolerance tbh. One symptom of poor tolerance is a spike after food making you sleepy. Foxy can advise.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Ayres? They are the best.
Of course. Perfect blend of trad British bakery and mild “artisan”.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Doesn’t the Abrams take about five hours of maintenance for every hour of operation ? Other way round for the Bradleys.
The Leopard makes way more sense logistically.
I think the Abrams gets 3 gallons per mile. That's thirsty.
And a massive issue is that it uses that much fuel even when idling. (Both the above from @MarkHertling, I think)
Not an insurmountable issue (after all, the US copes with it), but it is a big issue if fuel supply to the front becomes disrupted.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Nun head is the best. Fnarr.
My mother in law had a Mini with the reg NUN 69.....
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Doesn’t the Abrams take about five hours of maintenance for every hour of operation ? Other way round for the Bradleys.
The Leopard makes way more sense logistically.
I think the Abrams gets 3 gallons per mile. That's thirsty.
And a massive issue is that it uses that much fuel even when idling. (Both the above from @MarkHertling, I think)
Not an insurmountable issue (after all, the US copes with it), but it is a big issue if fuel supply to the front becomes disrupted.
That’s bonkers. You wouldn’t need fuel supply to be much disrupted to get into problems. They should bring out a mild hybrid version with regenerative braking.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
I think you might want to consider the breadth of what the ‘humanities’ covers. I once attended a chemical weapons conference that was organised out of a social science department. There are serious things that effect peoples lives. Don’t get me wrong, I’m hard core STEM, trying to cure cancer, or at least understand it better, but human life is enhanced by endeavours in all ways.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone had this?
I believe it's called getting old.
Is that it? I find it hard to believe. I know plenty of people older than me who don’t go into REM sleep 50 minutes after dinner
This is the weird thing. It’s not an elderly nap. It’s proper sleep. As I say I feel fine otherwise so it’s a curiosity which is sometimes irritating. No more than that
I've always tended to feel drowsy after a meal, although usually not properly falling asleep drowsy. I imagine the time difference is a factor, although you'd expect that to be worse in the morning if you're in Asia. Maybe you've just been trying to do too much and you need some proper rest or an early night? Travelling is tiring and you will feel it more than you did when you were in your twenties or thirties.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
It would certainly simplify the decision if the US announced it was going to send tanks.
(Snip)
You might think so. It might also offer Scholz an opportunity to say: "Hey, Ukraine's getting 200 Abrams. They don't need our Leopards."
He should just FDI.
Can you really not appreciate why Scholz might be reluctant to send tanks if the US is refusing to do so? Anything that looks like the Germans taking a military lead would be a propaganda victory for Putin, for one thing. Memories of the Great Patriotic War and all that.
That just sounds like excuse-making.
Putin will try to make a propaganda victory out of anything. Sending them. Not sending them. ("Look, the Germans think their tanks are pants and will blow up at the first sight of a T-62!")
It's quite simple: do you want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine? If so, they need the tools. Not giving them the tools may still lead to a win, but it will cost many more Ukrainian lives.
If you don't want Russia to be defeated in Ukraine, why not?
It sounds like you are making excuses for the Americans. Don't you think the Russians are more likely to be defeated if the US also sends tanks?
LOL, I'm not making excuses (although there are practical problems with the fuel-guzzling, maintenance-heavy turbine-driven Abrams that are not faced with the Leopard 2). The US should send some. But that doesn't excuse Germany not sending Leopards.
The UK has shown more leadership in this horrid mess than Germany has, at every stage. And that's such an unusual thing to say nowadays, you have to wonder why.
There's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. There's less than zero (negative?) reason for them to block other countries sending their Leopards.
Linking it to US deliveries of Abrams is pathetic, especially after we've committed to delivering C2s.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. It is not remotely unusual for the UK to show more leadership in military matters than Germany, for very obvious historical reasons. And it's absurd to claim that there's zero reason for Germany not to send tanks. Of course there are reasons for Germany not to send tanks, just as there are reasons for Germany to send tanks.
Hopefully the West will work together to find the best way to deal with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and bring an end to the suffering. And hopefully the people working on this are basing their plans on reason rather than the kind of impetuous "just FDI" mentality that you are displaying here.
"Your arguments are becoming increasingly irrational. "
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
I think Germany should send tanks, though I'm less absolutely certain than you seem to be. And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else. And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months. And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
I'm not making 'excuses' for the US (aside from a few points below that suggest the Leopard 2 is a marginally better tank for this particular case than Abrams). To make it clear: the US should send Abrams (as I think I've said below). More Bradleys as well (though as with all of these things, training takes a considerable time. I fully expect more to be sent after the first few and the operating and maintenance teams are set up in Ukraine - which is another reason to send the tanks of whatever type ASAP).
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Doesn’t the Abrams take about five hours of maintenance for every hour of operation ? Other way round for the Bradleys.
The Leopard makes way more sense logistically.
I think the Abrams gets 3 gallons per mile. That's thirsty.
And a massive issue is that it uses that much fuel even when idling. (Both the above from @MarkHertling, I think)
Not an insurmountable issue (after all, the US copes with it), but it is a big issue if fuel supply to the front becomes disrupted.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
Depends what you mean by humanities. Geography and history are as or more relevant to working in the 21st century than they’ve ever been, and somewhat more than several other supposedly more vocational subjects.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Bacon and eggs is massively lifted by black pudding....
In a bit of a nap in the afternoon way. Certainly!
Relatedly - I wonder if PB can help with a non-urgent medical condition
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone had this?
I believe it's called getting old.
Is that it? I find it hard to believe. I know plenty of people older than me who don’t go into REM sleep 50 minutes after dinner
This is the weird thing. It’s not an elderly nap. It’s proper sleep. As I say I feel fine otherwise so it’s a curiosity which is sometimes irritating. No more than that
I've always tended to feel drowsy after a meal, although usually not properly falling asleep drowsy. I imagine the time difference is a factor, although you'd expect that to be worse in the morning if you're in Asia. Maybe you've just been trying to do too much and you need some proper rest or an early night? Travelling is tiring and you will feel it more than you did when you were in your twenties or thirties.
Mm, perhaps. And thanks. I’ve just checked diabetes and pre-diabetes and I’ve got, at most, 2 out of 10 symptoms. So it doesn’t appear to be that
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine all help us live, but it is the Arts and Humanities that give us a reason to live.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
I think you might want to consider the breadth of what the ‘humanities’ covers. I once attended a chemical weapons conference that was organised out of a social science department. There are serious things that effect peoples lives. Don’t get me wrong, I’m hard core STEM, trying to cure cancer, or at least understand it better, but human life is enhanced by endeavours in all ways.
Organised out of a social science department doesnt make it humanities based I suspect the conference was largely populated by stem people and most subjects were stem. If the WI organised it would not make chemical weapons a feminine issue.
Stem subjects have given the world nuclear power, renewable energy sources, nitrogen fertilisers so we can feed a world population, electric cars, anti biotics, medical advances that keep people alive such as pace makers and transplants.....etc etc
What has humanities given that balance the equation so they are equal?
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
I think you might want to consider the breadth of what the ‘humanities’ covers. I once attended a chemical weapons conference that was organised out of a social science department. There are serious things that effect peoples lives. Don’t get me wrong, I’m hard core STEM, trying to cure cancer, or at least understand it better, but human life is enhanced by endeavours in all ways.
Organised out of a social science department doesnt make it humanities based I suspect the conference was largely populated by stem people and most subjects were stem. If the WI organised it would not make chemical weapons a feminine issue.
Stem subjects have given the world nuclear power, renewable energy sources, nitrogen fertilisers so we can feed a world population, electric cars, anti biotics, medical advances that keep people alive such as pace makers and transplants.....etc etc
What has humanities given that balance the equation so they are equal?
History and the ability to understand how the world became what it is today?
And by the way, I was probably the only STEM person at the CW conference. It was much more about international relations etc.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine all help us live, but it is the Arts and Humanities that give us a reason to live.
Well they might you some of us frankly think most modern art is a pile of dross. You think hurst and Emin give you a reason to live thats fine what they give me is a reason to believe the universe would be better off with out humans
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
Depends what you mean by humanities. Geography and history are as or more relevant to working in the 21st century than they’ve ever been, and somewhat more than several other supposedly more vocational subjects.
Ok you say history is more relevant to working in the 21st century....examples please of where it matters
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine all help us live, but it is the Arts and Humanities that give us a reason to live.
I'd say it was art and humanity that gives us the reason to live - not the study of them? I'm all for people studying them - but I'm not sure I'd say it was 'up there' with doing them.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine all help us live, but it is the Arts and Humanities that give us a reason to live.
I'd say it was art and humanity that gives us the reason to live - not the study of them? I'm all for people studying them - but I'm not sure I'd say it was 'up there' with doing them.
Precisely my point....artists never used to need to go study humanities....they just did it. Now they study and produce soulless dross like a bisected shark in formaldehyde
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.
The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.
If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.
BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.
Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
As a former humanities graduate I’d have hoped you’d have had a wittier response… (I agree with your sentiment though!)
I am not saying per se that humanities students are not contributors to the social weal. I am saying that the study of humanities has not made them net contributors to the social weal. Where they have contributed is when they went non humanities based like for example RCS and his insurance business. This is based on actuary which is more or less a stats based subject and hence stem.
There are few uni courses that directly lead to a career in that subject (although oddly my pharamacy students are on one such course). Uni study is about a lot more than the specifics of the three/four years. If every chemistry graduate tried to stay in chemistry there would be 10 for every job. But they also learn to evaluate data, solve problems and so on, skills that take them into a myriad of roles. Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Bat shit theories are I agree everywhere. Does not change the fact that stem has done a lot to improve the life of humans a lot. Humanities has done the squareroot of fuckall to improve it.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
I think you might want to consider the breadth of what the ‘humanities’ covers. I once attended a chemical weapons conference that was organised out of a social science department. There are serious things that effect peoples lives. Don’t get me wrong, I’m hard core STEM, trying to cure cancer, or at least understand it better, but human life is enhanced by endeavours in all ways.
Organised out of a social science department doesnt make it humanities based I suspect the conference was largely populated by stem people and most subjects were stem. If the WI organised it would not make chemical weapons a feminine issue.
Stem subjects have given the world nuclear power, renewable energy sources, nitrogen fertilisers so we can feed a world population, electric cars, anti biotics, medical advances that keep people alive such as pace makers and transplants.....etc etc
What has humanities given that balance the equation so they are equal?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Soy sauce on scrambled eggs; Tabasco on fried eggs
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
That's fourth then.
Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
Fifth....
No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The best possible breakfasts in my view are;
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
Nun head is the best. Fnarr.
My mother in law had a Mini with the reg NUN 69.....
Comments
LOSING TAIWAN MEANS LOSING JAPAN
https://scholars-stage.org/losing-taiwan-means-losing-japan/
This is more an indictment of the way undergraduate courses are taught than anything else, to be honest - a simple regurgitation of what other people have said on the subject is enough to get you through an undergrad essay, without any real thought or analysis, and that's what ChatGPT provides.
As I understand it, ChatGPT is probabilistic, in that each additional word it types is based on the probability of it being the right word that follows on from the previous word, based on its training data. I.e. it has ten million sources telling it that if you type "roses are" then it will type "red" as the next word -- its level of comprehension is no greater than that. It's essentially doing mad-libs based on huge statistical data.
Which brings us back to the topic of undergraduate essays. Are they really much more than the above? One of the really terrible things I've noticed about recent undergrads (maybe all undergrads - maybe I'm just old, and this is as it always was) is their inability to analyse and criticise what they're told - hence why woke-ism spreads rampant across campuses - because undergrads accept it uncritically and regurgitate what they've been told.
University education needs to move from one where you regurgitate others work (with citations) and pass this regurgitation off as any real "knowledge" of the subject, and towards one where individual and critical thinking skills are more valued. Do that, and university education might be valuable. Don't, and you might as well use the chatbot.
"German arms firm Rheinmetall says Leopard tanks can’t be ready for Ukraine until 2024"
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-germany-tanks-rheinmetall-leopard-2024/
LOL. No. My position is simple: I want Russia out of Ukraine. The longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians die. They need as many tools as they can get to achieve victory as soon as possible. That's best for all of us.
You may disagree. But I think what I've said today is pretty much in line with that.
Yes, there needs to be a plan. Yes, there are things that could make the situation worse (except Ukraine has shown an admirable ability to run and maintain a diverse range of kit). But that's not what we're seeing from Scholz. Or from your excuses.
The Conservatives are firmly locked in the latter mode.
This is actually a serious option: Ukraine needs kit now. How much do we risk not being able to deal with threats in the next year or two, compared to the threat Russia imminently poses? Or more bluntly: why do we have this kit except for it to be used?
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez thinks Democrats have a big problem relating to the middle class. Because they’re not part of it.
Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was a stunning winner in the 2022 midterms. The millennial auto shop owner flipped a Washington district that both the state and national Democratic parties considered unwinnable. . . . .
Natalie Fertig: You’re part of a 200-plus person Democratic caucus. How do you see yourself creating an understanding of the middle class in that caucus and getting middle-class laws passed?
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: It feels like the Democratic Party, especially wealthy leadership in the Democratic Party, has taken it upon themselves to be champions of the poorest of the poor. And I think that’s great, but I think that it has left a lot of people in the middle class feeling like people don’t understand the issues we’re facing [including] Catalytic converter theft. Bad infrastructure. Shit roads.
Fertig: I’m laughing at the catalytic converter theft, because I feel like that’s like all my dad was talking about when I was home over the summer [in Perez's congressional district WA03].
Gluesenkamp Perez: Oh, yeah. I replaced hundreds of catalytic converters last year. It’s like $40 worth of platinum, and it’s a $1,300 repair. That just eviscerated so many people’s emergency funds all across the district. . . .
Gluesenkamp Perez: I don’t think that your traditional pedigreed Democrats are the solution to Trump extremism. I think that a lot of these traditional Democrats, the m.o. is to go into a community and start explaining shit. Nobody likes that. . . . .
Fertig: Do you feel like the things that made success in your district are very specific to you and your district, or do you think there’s a model there that Democrats could use in other rural districts?
Gluesenkamp Perez: We need more and more normal people to run for Congress. We need more people that work in the trades.
When I was thinking about running, I interviewed some jackass, fancy consultant. I told him about myself, and he was like, “Well, I’ve worked with worse.” When I said I had a son, he chortled, and was like, “Hope you don’t want to see your kid again.”
He told me to talk to the governor and see if I could get appointed to some committee on aging and disability, or something like that, and build up a resume that would allow me to run successfully later on.
I’m just like, “How many other women has that happened to, you know these jackass men telling them not to run?” And I’m like, “Well, I guess you’re the expert, you’re wearing the suit.” . . .
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/19/marie-gluenskamp-perez-democrats-middle-class-00078215
SSI - Am 99.46% certain I know the "jackass, fancy consultant" the Congresswoman is talking about!
'ALISTER Jack has said the trans community was “not part of my thinking at all” when it came to his decision to block gender reform in Scotland.
Instead, the Scottish Secretary insisted his unprecedented use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act was “entirely” for legal reasons. [...]
Asked if the fact that trans people had not been a “part of his thinking” when he decided to block gender reform was a startling admission, Jack said: “You’re putting words into my mouth.”
Told that he was in fact being quoted directly, he went on: “I said in taking the decision I have every sympathy for the trans community and people who want to change gender. That is not the issue here. [...].'
And there's plenty of criticism in Germany of the delays, and not only the opposition CDU but also the FDP and Greens are in favour. I'm not a fan of Scholz, who I think hasn't shown much leadership, although he may be fairly in line with the median German voter on these issues.
But I don't understand why you are willing to make excuses for the US, while at the same time making such self-righteous condemnation of Germany. It seems inconsistent and illogical when I don't hear you use this kind of language about anyone else.
And yes maybe every day costs lives, but Ukraine has been asking for tanks from allies for months, and forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear this kind of language from you for all these months.
And I find some of your arguments pretty contrived.
Why I’m Not Running Again for City Council
I'm Launching a National Movement Called Workers Strike Back
https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2023/01/19/78821484/why-im-not-running-again-for-city-council
SSI - My take is
a) Sawant noticed same thing as I did, namely that her support has been deflating to point that she barely survived December 2021 recall vote.
b) Her political operation in Seattle has always depended on money from unknown sources (New York City trust funders most likely) to pay for field army; and that by going national/global, she can expand what may well be a declining fiscal basis?
Fifth....
Edit: I see my response is second only to SandyRentool's
What is contrived is the 'link' you and others suggest that Germany can only send tanks if the US does. It is, in my view, bullshit. It's ridiculous, especially after the UK is sending some MBTs and Russia has not nuked us. And not allowing other countries to send their Leopards is crazy from a medium-term business point of view. Hopefully that at least may change.
I think you're taking my criticism of Germany over their handling of this Ukraine crisis too far. I'm not 'condemning' them. I think they've made some good decisions, some mediocre decisions, and some bad decisions. But their messaging appears to be all over the place. And messaging matters, especially when the Kremlin is listening.
All this started with a BBC article that had an odd graph that, as DA said, pro-Russians were using to their advantage. The way to 'beat' UK in terms of military kit sent is to send the kit.
Bit late for you to notice.
It is worth noting that Power of Siberia (the Russo-China pipeline) only ran at about 50% of capacity last year - 20BCM vs 40BCM.
I think that's positive, given there're still lots of places we can build windfarms.
It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
The Leopard makes way more sense logistically.
Other countries are sending MBTs, or want to (and it seems some are being blocked by Germany).
(I agree with your sentiment though!)
Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)
Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
Out here in Bangkok I’ve developed a sudden habit of sleeping - quite heavily - for an hour or two after supper. I ascribed it to jet lag but it is persisting. Hmm
Doctor Google says I should not worry it’s “post prandial somnolence” and quite common. But I’ve never had it before and it is beginning to irritate. Also it could be awkward if I dine out - then slump forward, snoring, into the sorbet
Otherwise I feel fine. Indeed robustly healthy - sun, gym and swim
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone had this?
Some badly raised brats swear blind there's a huge difference between baked beans with this packaging and baked beans with that packaging. What a country. Five different looking tins of baked beans on the shelf, aimed at different market segments. Is this a comedy? No, it's real life. About time the west collapsed really. Perhaps the haricot beans are grown in five different types of field - upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, and lower. Classy.
I've always had nothing but contempt for those who turn the bottles and packets in kitchens and bathrooms to show the labels off to visitors. Talk about a nation of petits bourgeois.
PS Before anyone points it out, yes I know much of the third world is the same. Let it all collapse...
As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
Soy sauce on scrambled eggs; Tabasco on fried eggs
*chef’s kiss*
Humanities will have similar hard and soft skills. At the fringes are some bat shit theories that get academics in the news. And that is often the aim - unis love getting in the news. But don’t forget the science weirdos are there too. From water molecules retaining the memory of molecules that were once dissolved in it, to the idea that having two sudden infant deaths in a family is unbelievably rare (when the chances of a second are more likely if there is a first), to the idea nuclear fusion will ever work as a power source.* Lots of the highest impact stuff in healthcare comes out of fairly soft subjects such as psychology. You can save billions on medication if you work out why patients don’t complete their medication or take them incorrectly.
*The sun doesn’t count.
Soy sauce - just a dash - for mushrooms sautéed in butter.
This is the weird thing. It’s not an elderly nap. It’s proper sleep. As I say I feel fine otherwise so it’s a curiosity which is sometimes irritating. No more than that
And a massive issue is that it uses that much fuel even when idling. (Both the above from @MarkHertling, I think)
Not an insurmountable issue (after all, the US copes with it), but it is a big issue if fuel supply to the front becomes disrupted.
I don't advocate banning humanities studies I just think it should be seen as what it is which is a hobby sort of thing with little relevance to making life better for most people
Quite odd
Stem subjects have given the world nuclear power, renewable energy sources, nitrogen fertilisers so we can feed a world population, electric cars, anti biotics, medical advances that keep people alive such as pace makers and transplants.....etc etc
What has humanities given that balance the equation so they are equal?
And by the way, I was probably the only STEM person at the CW conference. It was much more about international relations etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/19/tory-seats-gain-more-4bn-levelling-up-fund-finds-analysis