Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
I thinnk films are one thing that are definitely not better than they used to be. Too many filmmakers have given up telling a story, in favour of flashy special effects.
Perhaps President Biden ought, if challenged about his age, adopt the same attitude as then-President Reagan did when challenged by Walter Mondale in 1984.
Many of the arguments being used about Biden now were used against Reagan then and there's a general concensus Reagan's eight years were among the most successful in recent American history.
Redfield & Wilton has its latest round of Red Wall polling - last evening's UK-wide poll had a swing of 19.5% in England. Tonight's Red Wall has a swing of 16% from Conservative to labour so that begs the question as to whether the Conservatives are actually doing worse in some of their core areas then the national UNS would suggest.
The 2019 Conservative vote splits 51% Conservative, 18% Labour and 17% Don't Know which is a little better than last night's UK-wide numbers.
Not according to the details of yesterday's poll which has the Tories on 32% in the South East and 31% in the East compared to just 24% UK wide (albeit doing a bit worse in the South West).
The Conservatives are doing better in the Midlands and Wales too on 31% and 30% respectively though which might explain it given the redwall seats there as well as the North
"Spain spends €258m to build trains too big for its tunnels
The embarrassing blunder led to a blame game between Renfe, Spain’s national rail operator, and Adif, the track company, while the country’s Left-wing coalition government also came under fire for failing to notice the error.
Raquel Sanchez, the country’s transport minister, admitted that an “error” had been made and promised those responsible would be dismissed.
Renfe announced that its rolling stock manager had been fired along with Adif’s technology inspectorate head.
The trains must now be redesigned to ensure they can pass safely through tunnels on their intended routes. The first services will not begin until 2026 at the earliest, two years later than expected."
Would have been more amusing had the trains actually been built. As it is, they haven't
Perhaps President Biden ought, if challenged about his age, adopt the same attitude as then-President Reagan did when challenged by Walter Mondale in 1984.
Many of the arguments being used about Biden now were used against Reagan then and there's a general concensus Reagan's eight years were among the most successful in recent American history…
I’d personally disagree about that, but it’s a fair point.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
I don't know if Biden is senile or not. I also don't know if it's a good idea for him to run for a second term. What I can say, he is on top of his game right now, and if it continues I don't see any reason for him not to run. I'm with @kinabalu on this.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
I thinnk films are one thing that are definitely not better than they used to be. Too many filmmakers have given up telling a story, in favour of flashy special effects.
When was the golden era? I would say the 1980s (late 70s to beginning of 90s). The sheer range of stories and genres. Old enough to have the originality, storytelling and pacing of the classics, new enough to get the special effects, a more familiar modern setting, and more naturalistic acting.
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
Sorry to hear this, kjh. 96? Gosh. That's a long life.
Lucy Frazer, the new SoS at DCMS inherits the gambling review. She is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
So she should know whether cattle taken in withernam are replevisible, the history of detinue and whether market overt applies to Bermondsey market after sunset before 1995. Is she interested in racing as well?
That sounds a bit like a Biden speech.
This is true, and drags us back to the topic. Yes he should not run, but to be honest as long as the POTUS is not a narcissistic fascist I'm not all that fussy.
But though he is a bit elderly and so on he always sounds as if he is prefers to think kindly of things, and of people'; and this is unlike some others, and I greatly admire him for it.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
Churchill. But he made his mark early on. Biden has been around for ever, but only got to the top spot when he was old. Also Reagan and Adenauer.
"Spain spends €258m to build trains too big for its tunnels
The embarrassing blunder led to a blame game between Renfe, Spain’s national rail operator, and Adif, the track company, while the country’s Left-wing coalition government also came under fire for failing to notice the error.
Raquel Sanchez, the country’s transport minister, admitted that an “error” had been made and promised those responsible would be dismissed.
Renfe announced that its rolling stock manager had been fired along with Adif’s technology inspectorate head.
The trains must now be redesigned to ensure they can pass safely through tunnels on their intended routes. The first services will not begin until 2026 at the earliest, two years later than expected."
Holy cow. Two thousand trains and 15bn euro? You'd really think that's the kind of order you'd double, triple, quadruple check.
I guess the train operator checked the order against the data that the infrastructure owner gave them, trusting the latter was accurate.
In the Goode Olde Days, what they did (sometimes, admittedly) was to mock up with wood and tin plate, the maximum dimensions of new rolling stock. Then run it through to see if it got bashed.
Did they? I'm not aware of a case where they did that (in the UK at least).
At one level, they had (and I've used one), a permanent way trolley would be run through structures, with a low wooden structure to pick up widths (as platform distances are a killer). Nowadays, with unusual rolling stock, they do a proving run.
Goods depots (as was pre 1970) used to have a loading gauge, to check everything loaded was within gauge.
But I have never, ever, seen a picture of a mock-up of a full loading gauge run up and down the line. And I've seen pictures of wooden huts built on the front of steam locos, so that engineers could measure smokebox pressures...
The problem is one of dynamics. A trolley containing a wooded and tin-plate structure being run through at 10MPH exhibits very different behaviour to one being run through at 60 MPH. They sway, and in a way that is quite hard to model. Running one through can be the best way - especially with modern 'mind the gap' concerns with accessibility.
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
Under Elon Musk's ownership, Sh*tter may help a Trump campaign a lot in 2024 against whoever the Democrat is. Musk could for example run his own votes, something he has form for. "Do you think Biden is ***? Yes or no."
It's going to be interesting to watch how he handles Polly Samson's effort today against Roger Waters, in which she calls him all the names under the sun. Waters could perhaps have responded with something along the lines of "You're a f***ing idiot", but given the allegation that he is a thief he may well sue.
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
I think that every film cliche was once a bright innovation, so the brilliance of CK is not so recognised. Its innovative plotting and tracking shots are now normal. Critics though are more likely to understand its significance so much more than a more recent audience.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
"Spain spends €258m to build trains too big for its tunnels
The embarrassing blunder led to a blame game between Renfe, Spain’s national rail operator, and Adif, the track company, while the country’s Left-wing coalition government also came under fire for failing to notice the error.
Raquel Sanchez, the country’s transport minister, admitted that an “error” had been made and promised those responsible would be dismissed.
Renfe announced that its rolling stock manager had been fired along with Adif’s technology inspectorate head.
The trains must now be redesigned to ensure they can pass safely through tunnels on their intended routes. The first services will not begin until 2026 at the earliest, two years later than expected."
Holy cow. Two thousand trains and 15bn euro? You'd really think that's the kind of order you'd double, triple, quadruple check.
I guess the train operator checked the order against the data that the infrastructure owner gave them, trusting the latter was accurate.
In the Goode Olde Days, what they did (sometimes, admittedly) was to mock up with wood and tin plate, the maximum dimensions of new rolling stock. Then run it through to see if it got bashed.
Did they? I'm not aware of a case where they did that (in the UK at least).
At one level, they had (and I've used one), a permanent way trolley would be run through structures, with a low wooden structure to pick up widths (as platform distances are a killer). Nowadays, with unusual rolling stock, they do a proving run.
Goods depots (as was pre 1970) used to have a loading gauge, to check everything loaded was within gauge.
But I have never, ever, seen a picture of a mock-up of a full loading gauge run up and down the line. And I've seen pictures of wooden huts built on the front of steam locos, so that engineers could measure smokebox pressures...
The problem is one of dynamics. A trolley containing a wooded and tin-plate structure being run through at 10MPH exhibits very different behaviour to one being run through at 60 MPH. They sway, and in a way that is quite hard to model. Running one through can be the best way - especially with modern 'mind the gap' concerns with accessibility.
It wasn't a full model - more sticks sticking out out from an existing wagon - saw some pictures years ago...
The problem is that that's fine for a static, or near-static, model. When something moves at speed, with the bogies not at the very ends of the wagon/coach, then it's a very different matter. The higher the speed, the greater the problem, as the greater the dynamics. Admittedly 25 years ago, they could not accurately model the dynamics of a railway carriage on real-world track and structure data, given variances in springing and other items. even thermal expansion of continuously-welded rail can add a few milimetres.
This was made easier by modern airbag-style secondary suspensions (in addition to the traditional springs), but dynamics, and to a lesser extent tribilogy, is still an issue.
It's made worse by modern accessibility requirements, where gaps between platforms and doors have to be minimised. Hence why some modern trains have footboards that dynamically extend to reduce the gap.
It's why proving runs still happen: and still produce surprises on occasion.
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
We proved last evening that the wiki page averaging has Sunak just over 3% from the lowest averaging for Truss. Even HY surrendered in the end. And over the last few days PB has proved nothing has substantially moved in the polls for about 3 months. Except for sure, Sunak’s personal ratings have started to take a dive, and in his head to head best PM with Starmer (universally acknowledged a rating giving inbuilt advantage to incumbent) Starmer is stretching out a sizeable lead.
Would they really be in so deep if they had toughed it out with Boris for the full Parliamentary term? He was taking a midterm hammering from the media, but the polling wasn’t stuck anywhere near this crisis level.
The sack Boris to win the next election by giving someone else a try just just has not worked. Winning the next election is not losing all an eighty seat majority, or somehow clinging to power. It’s hard to see where the swingback for that is going to come from, so the objective now is hope for a hung Parliament and avoid such a reduction in seats coming back to government doesn’t seem such a mountain to climb?
No I didn't. As I made clear last night you included polls from after Truss resigned for Truss when Sunak was in effect PM elect and polls before the markets crashed for Truss too
No. The only just 4 behind Labour polls Truss had would be shaping the chart the other side of the big dip. As Sunak was called in just short period, there weren’t too many Sunak elect polls to include. Where are Rishi’s just 4 behind Labour polls if he’s that much more trusted and liked by voters than Truss? That’s the point, he can’t return it to anything like booster rooster gets thing done Boris levels which was the whole point dumping the winning PM in the first place.
Bottom line is, there on the graph is the lowest point Torirs have reached by averaging all polls, and there is Sunak just 3.3% above it.
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
Working from Home is the scapegoat for a raft of other problems notably recruitment and retention. There are huge staff shortages across much of local Government and in the private sector and many of these are at the front-facing customer end. Mrs Stodge spent 20 minutes on the phone waiting to deal with a private company yesterday while Primark in East Ham High Street has 16 tills but on Saturday lunchtime only five were open and the queues huge in an area where a lot of people shop at the weekends and still use cash.
These staff shortages do have a real impact on the service that's offered and it may be we are moving into a new era of inferior direct service with the anticipation or expectation more business is conducted digitally without human involvement (subject to the roll out of AI).
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
I think that every film cliche was once a bright innovation, so the brilliance of CK is not so recognised. Its innovative plotting and tracking shots are now normal. Critics though are more likely to understand its significance so much more than a more recent audience.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
That sounds like total bollocks to me. There's definitely a market for slower, more contemplative movies even today. People enjoy longform content online in loads of ways as well, they are not incapable of enjoying slowly paced movies. It's just saying that people didn't 'get' a movie and that's their fault. Some movies won't appeal to some people by virtue of style or story, and that's fine, but people are often able to see the merits of a film even if it was not for them, and not destined for mass success. It'd be an excuse to use that approach.
As for Citizen Kane, I cannot judge it as I have not seen it, but I think the idea all the film critics who put it high on their list do so because they have a genuinely indepth knowledge of its merits, as they might have existed at the time for innovative filmmaking techniques, seems very optimistic. I don't think critics adjust their position on whether they think Cannibal Holocaust is a good movie or not because of its significance as a found footage movie. They judge it and other movies based on whether they think it is good on its own merits. CK apparently is still compelling for many people.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
And it's interesting that those two most effective presidents have been the most mentally insecure.
I'd suggest there's definitely an advantage in very senior office in accepting your limitations and being able to delegate effectively and trust those around you.
Whereas those leaders that appoint teams of loyal numpties and then try and lead on everything themselves - both Trump and Johnson obviously come to mind - set themselves up to fail.
"Spain spends €258m to build trains too big for its tunnels
The embarrassing blunder led to a blame game between Renfe, Spain’s national rail operator, and Adif, the track company, while the country’s Left-wing coalition government also came under fire for failing to notice the error.
Raquel Sanchez, the country’s transport minister, admitted that an “error” had been made and promised those responsible would be dismissed.
Renfe announced that its rolling stock manager had been fired along with Adif’s technology inspectorate head.
The trains must now be redesigned to ensure they can pass safely through tunnels on their intended routes. The first services will not begin until 2026 at the earliest, two years later than expected."
Holy cow. Two thousand trains and 15bn euro? You'd really think that's the kind of order you'd double, triple, quadruple check.
I guess the train operator checked the order against the data that the infrastructure owner gave them, trusting the latter was accurate.
In the Goode Olde Days, what they did (sometimes, admittedly) was to mock up with wood and tin plate, the maximum dimensions of new rolling stock. Then run it through to see if it got bashed.
Did they? I'm not aware of a case where they did that (in the UK at least).
At one level, they had (and I've used one), a permanent way trolley would be run through structures, with a low wooden structure to pick up widths (as platform distances are a killer). Nowadays, with unusual rolling stock, they do a proving run.
Goods depots (as was pre 1970) used to have a loading gauge, to check everything loaded was within gauge.
But I have never, ever, seen a picture of a mock-up of a full loading gauge run up and down the line. And I've seen pictures of wooden huts built on the front of steam locos, so that engineers could measure smokebox pressures...
The problem is one of dynamics. A trolley containing a wooded and tin-plate structure being run through at 10MPH exhibits very different behaviour to one being run through at 60 MPH. They sway, and in a way that is quite hard to model. Running one through can be the best way - especially with modern 'mind the gap' concerns with accessibility.
It wasn't a full model - more sticks sticking out out from an existing wagon - saw some pictures years ago...
The problem is that that's fine for a static, or near-static, model. When something moves at speed, with the bogies not at the very ends of the wagon/coach, then it's a very different matter. The higher the speed, the greater the problem, as the greater the dynamics. Admittedly 25 years ago, they could not accurately model the dynamics of a railway carriage on real-world track and structure data, given variances in springing and other items. even thermal expansion of continuously-welded rail can add a few milimetres.
This was made easier by modern airbag-style secondary suspensions (in addition to the traditional springs), but dynamics, and to a lesser extent tribilogy, is still an issue.
It's made worse by modern accessibility requirements, where gaps between platforms and doors have to be minimised. Hence why some modern trains have footboards that dynamically extend to reduce the gap.
It's why proving runs still happen: and still produce surprises on occasion.
Absolutely - I'm sure it was a case of "if we at least *try* this".
So much stuff in engineering was guestimation. Propellor design for ships was, until modern computers and turbulence modelling came in, educated guess work and "try this, because it kind of worked on a vaguely similar ship". They were figuring stuff out, even in the 80s and 90s, that had major performance effects.
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
Working from Home is the scapegoat for a raft of other problems notably recruitment and retention. There are huge staff shortages across much of local Government and in the private sector and many of these are at the front-facing customer end. Mrs Stodge spent 20 minutes on the phone waiting to deal with a private company yesterday while Primark in East Ham High Street has 16 tills but on Saturday lunchtime only five were open and the queues huge in an area where a lot of people shop at the weekends and still use cash.
These staff shortages do have a real impact on the service that's offered and it may be we are moving into a new era of inferior direct service with the anticipation or expectation more business is conducted digitally without human involvement (subject to the roll out of AI).
The staff shortage are one thing.
I think that there is an issue with "sick organisations" - demotivated, disgruntled staff, who see WFH as an escape from the bullshit. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work for them".
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
Working from Home is the scapegoat for a raft of other problems notably recruitment and retention. There are huge staff shortages across much of local Government and in the private sector and many of these are at the front-facing customer end. Mrs Stodge spent 20 minutes on the phone waiting to deal with a private company yesterday while Primark in East Ham High Street has 16 tills but on Saturday lunchtime only five were open and the queues huge in an area where a lot of people shop at the weekends and still use cash.
These staff shortages do have a real impact on the service that's offered and it may be we are moving into a new era of inferior direct service with the anticipation or expectation more business is conducted digitally without human involvement (subject to the roll out of AI).
Ultimately, the free market finds a way, and we get roughly what we're prepared to pay for. Complaining otherwise is like decrying the shortness of the wine list on Ryanair.
A lot of services, public and private, are pretty dismal these days, but the idea that there's a seam of quality work that can be mined by forcing office drones back into the office seems pretty fanciful.
"Spain spends €258m to build trains too big for its tunnels
The embarrassing blunder led to a blame game between Renfe, Spain’s national rail operator, and Adif, the track company, while the country’s Left-wing coalition government also came under fire for failing to notice the error.
Raquel Sanchez, the country’s transport minister, admitted that an “error” had been made and promised those responsible would be dismissed.
Renfe announced that its rolling stock manager had been fired along with Adif’s technology inspectorate head.
The trains must now be redesigned to ensure they can pass safely through tunnels on their intended routes. The first services will not begin until 2026 at the earliest, two years later than expected."
Holy cow. Two thousand trains and 15bn euro? You'd really think that's the kind of order you'd double, triple, quadruple check.
I guess the train operator checked the order against the data that the infrastructure owner gave them, trusting the latter was accurate.
In the Goode Olde Days, what they did (sometimes, admittedly) was to mock up with wood and tin plate, the maximum dimensions of new rolling stock. Then run it through to see if it got bashed.
Did they? I'm not aware of a case where they did that (in the UK at least).
At one level, they had (and I've used one), a permanent way trolley would be run through structures, with a low wooden structure to pick up widths (as platform distances are a killer). Nowadays, with unusual rolling stock, they do a proving run.
Goods depots (as was pre 1970) used to have a loading gauge, to check everything loaded was within gauge.
But I have never, ever, seen a picture of a mock-up of a full loading gauge run up and down the line. And I've seen pictures of wooden huts built on the front of steam locos, so that engineers could measure smokebox pressures...
The problem is one of dynamics. A trolley containing a wooded and tin-plate structure being run through at 10MPH exhibits very different behaviour to one being run through at 60 MPH. They sway, and in a way that is quite hard to model. Running one through can be the best way - especially with modern 'mind the gap' concerns with accessibility.
It wasn't a full model - more sticks sticking out out from an existing wagon - saw some pictures years ago...
The problem is that that's fine for a static, or near-static, model. When something moves at speed, with the bogies not at the very ends of the wagon/coach, then it's a very different matter. The higher the speed, the greater the problem, as the greater the dynamics. Admittedly 25 years ago, they could not accurately model the dynamics of a railway carriage on real-world track and structure data, given variances in springing and other items. even thermal expansion of continuously-welded rail can add a few milimetres.
This was made easier by modern airbag-style secondary suspensions (in addition to the traditional springs), but dynamics, and to a lesser extent tribilogy, is still an issue.
It's made worse by modern accessibility requirements, where gaps between platforms and doors have to be minimised. Hence why some modern trains have footboards that dynamically extend to reduce the gap.
It's why proving runs still happen: and still produce surprises on occasion.
Absolutely - I'm sure it was a case of "if we at least *try* this".
So much stuff in engineering was guestimation. Propellor design for ships was, until modern computers and turbulence modelling came in, educated guess work and "try this, because it kind of worked on a vaguely similar ship". They were figuring stuff out, even in the 80s and 90s, that had major performance effects.
Although it and its siblings were designed to investigate high-speed freight, the knowledge gained from the tests fed into Japan and elsewhere for their 1st and 2nd generation high-speed trains.
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
I think that every film cliche was once a bright innovation, so the brilliance of CK is not so recognised. Its innovative plotting and tracking shots are now normal. Critics though are more likely to understand its significance so much more than a more recent audience.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
That sounds like total bollocks to me. There's definitely a market for slower, more contemplative movies even today. People enjoy longform content online in loads of ways as well, they are not incapable of enjoying slowly paced movies. It's just saying that people didn't 'get' a movie and that's their fault. Some movies won't appeal to some people by virtue of style or story, and that's fine, but people are often able to see the merits of a film even if it was not for them, and not destined for mass success. It'd be an excuse to use that approach.
As for Citizen Kane, I cannot judge it as I have not seen it, but I think the idea all the film critics who put it high on their list do so because they have a genuinely indepth knowledge of its merits, as they might have existed at the time for innovative filmmaking techniques, seems very optimistic. I don't think critics adjust their position on whether they think Cannibal Holocaust is a good movie or not because of its significance as a found footage movie. They judge it and other movies based on whether they think it is good on its own merits. CK apparently is still compelling for many people.
I am just saying that fashions change. For example I far prefer the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front to the current Netflix version. Sure, the original looks quite stagey and overacted to modern eyes, but I think that it's significance as the archetype of so many modern war films, far outweighs its faults.
All too often special effects make movies worse, being a substitute for a decent script and characterisation. Clearly something else that I am out of tune with modern times with.
Meanwhile, in "to reorganise is to bleed" news, Energy+Industry Civil Servants use a different set of collaboration software to Trade. Now they're in the same department.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
A couple of weeks back I was in one of our offices on a Friday. Quietest day of the week, but I was there for an all day in person meeting,
Scattered around parts of the building were individuals, sat at least two banks of desks away from the next nearest person.
They certainly weren't there for collaboration and team building opportunities. Perhaps they just wanted to save money on their gas bills and drink the complimentary coffee?
Meanwhile in my office there is more of a problem with too many people turning up for work midweek. More people than desks. There is a standing request for departments to make Monday and Friday their "team days", but no groups appear to be keen on the idea. I do my bit by WFH most of the time to free up a desk for someone else.
The number of trains running on HS2 will be almost halved and services will travel more slowly in a proposed shake-up of the £72bn line as ministers scramble to save money.
Whitehall officials are considering reducing the number of trains from 18 to 10 an hour, insiders said.
Meanwhile, plans to run services at up to 360 km/h (224 mph) are in jeopardy as officials weigh whether to reduce maximum speeds.
The proposals are among a series of cost-cutting measures under discussion as part of an overhaul codenamed Project Silverlight and Operation Blue Diamond, as ministers grapple with huge inflationary pressures on Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
The Department for Transport on Tuesday refused to rule out reducing the frequency and speed of HS2 trains.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
I think that every film cliche was once a bright innovation, so the brilliance of CK is not so recognised. Its innovative plotting and tracking shots are now normal. Critics though are more likely to understand its significance so much more than a more recent audience.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
That sounds like total bollocks to me. There's definitely a market for slower, more contemplative movies even today. People enjoy longform content online in loads of ways as well, they are not incapable of enjoying slowly paced movies. It's just saying that people didn't 'get' a movie and that's their fault. Some movies won't appeal to some people by virtue of style or story, and that's fine, but people are often able to see the merits of a film even if it was not for them, and not destined for mass success. It'd be an excuse to use that approach.
As for Citizen Kane, I cannot judge it as I have not seen it, but I think the idea all the film critics who put it high on their list do so because they have a genuinely indepth knowledge of its merits, as they might have existed at the time for innovative filmmaking techniques, seems very optimistic. I don't think critics adjust their position on whether they think Cannibal Holocaust is a good movie or not because of its significance as a found footage movie. They judge it and other movies based on whether they think it is good on its own merits. CK apparently is still compelling for many people.
I am just saying that fashions change. For example I far prefer the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front to the current Netflix version. Sure, the original looks quite stagey and overacted to modern eyes, but I think that it's significance as the archetype of so many modern war films, far outweighs its faults.
All too often special effects make movies worse, being a substitute for a decent script and characterisation. Clearly something else that I am out of tune with modern times with.
You did suggest people bore much more easily, and it's one of those accepted pieces of wisdom that are a pet peeve of mine, because I don't think it is true at all. I think people have said it enough that it's just assumed to be true, even though slower, more subtle stuff can still do well if it is good. Just because something doesn't make Marvel money doesn't alter tat.
I'm absolutely in agreement with you that special effects don't in themselves make a movie good, and good scripts and characterisation are far more important. Just recently I've watched some Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes but I couldn't get into Sherlock. I watched Tora Tora Tora, but Pearl Harbour was a snooze. Countless examples. Slightly hammy acting of an old movie is just a quirk to deal with, like that occasional thing the BBC has done with godawful audio mixing in the name of realism (though less annoying than that).
I don't agree with the comment that special effects make movies worse 'all too often', not least because movies use them in subtle ways many people probably don't realise, like the effects used in the movie Parasite. If effects is all the movie has going for it they cannot save it, and bad effects can be distracting and negative, but it's like saying the set design all too often makes a movie worse. If the other parts of the movie are decent the effects wouldn't matter so much, and might enhance it.
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
We proved last evening that the wiki page averaging has Sunak just over 3% from the lowest averaging for Truss. Even HY surrendered in the end. And over the last few days PB has proved nothing has substantially moved in the polls for about 3 months. Except for sure, Sunak’s personal ratings have started to take a dive, and in his head to head best PM with Starmer (universally acknowledged a rating giving inbuilt advantage to incumbent) Starmer is stretching out a sizeable lead.
Would they really be in so deep if they had toughed it out with Boris for the full Parliamentary term? He was taking a midterm hammering from the media, but the polling wasn’t stuck anywhere near this crisis level.
The sack Boris to win the next election by giving someone else a try just just has not worked. Winning the next election is not losing all an eighty seat majority, or somehow clinging to power. It’s hard to see where the swingback for that is going to come from, so the objective now is hope for a hung Parliament and avoid such a reduction in seats coming back to government doesn’t seem such a mountain to climb?
No I didn't. As I made clear last night you included polls from after Truss resigned for Truss when Sunak was in effect PM elect and polls before the markets crashed for Truss too
Okay. If it’s just a matter of phrasing the main question. Is Rishi Sunak still only 3.3% above the lowest average, the floor, the Tories achieved in the polls the last six months? It’s not even a yes or no answer, it’s a yes to that question isn’t it?
Nevermind. Are you sticking with your HY Local Election Forecast? Only 85 sleeps to go, and last we heard you said would be 28% for Tories - and not much seat losses as that same as they got in 2019 - and only 12% for Lib Dems. Kudos if you get anywhere close to that call more than 100 days from it.
You can always give us changed update on that whenever you like if you like, it will be no shame on you to move to 27-14 for example in light of Sunak’s personal poll slump.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
I think we do adjust those for age when assessing them. Quite a lot of great literature of the 19th Century is quite turgid and waffle to modern readers, as well as caring a great deal about issues considered trivial now. Simultaneously having prejudices and assumptions that would be quite grating in modern works. Colonialist, Imperialist, class and gender attitudes are rightly put in the context of their times, so why not other aspects of writing, or film?
As the Government's own passenger transport numbers are now only being released "following user feedback", we don't know how much of a "return" from WFH there really has been.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
The problem is that there has been choice by managers and employees. Unfortunately, some annoying idiots are complaining. Customers they call themselves.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
Working from Home is the scapegoat for a raft of other problems notably recruitment and retention. There are huge staff shortages across much of local Government and in the private sector and many of these are at the front-facing customer end. Mrs Stodge spent 20 minutes on the phone waiting to deal with a private company yesterday while Primark in East Ham High Street has 16 tills but on Saturday lunchtime only five were open and the queues huge in an area where a lot of people shop at the weekends and still use cash.
These staff shortages do have a real impact on the service that's offered and it may be we are moving into a new era of inferior direct service with the anticipation or expectation more business is conducted digitally without human involvement (subject to the roll out of AI).
The staff shortage are one thing.
I think that there is an issue with "sick organisations" - demotivated, disgruntled staff, who see WFH as an escape from the bullshit. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work for them".
I’m doing some charity work tomorrow, and it’s good to be out there in a team of people and chatting with them, and with customers, and learning stuff from doing that.
The number of trains running on HS2 will be almost halved and services will travel more slowly in a proposed shake-up of the £72bn line as ministers scramble to save money.
Whitehall officials are considering reducing the number of trains from 18 to 10 an hour, insiders said.
Meanwhile, plans to run services at up to 360 km/h (224 mph) are in jeopardy as officials weigh whether to reduce maximum speeds.
The proposals are among a series of cost-cutting measures under discussion as part of an overhaul codenamed Project Silverlight and Operation Blue Diamond, as ministers grapple with huge inflationary pressures on Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
The Department for Transport on Tuesday refused to rule out reducing the frequency and speed of HS2 trains.
A couple of weeks back I was in one of our offices on a Friday. Quietest day of the week, but I was there for an all day in person meeting,
Scattered around parts of the building were individuals, sat at least two banks of desks away from the next nearest person.
They certainly weren't there for collaboration and team building opportunities. Perhaps they just wanted to save money on their gas bills and drink the complimentary coffee?
Meanwhile in my office there is more of a problem with too many people turning up for work midweek. More people than desks. There is a standing request for departments to make Monday and Friday their "team days", but no groups appear to be keen on the idea. I do my bit by WFH most of the time to free up a desk for someone else.
People can want the comfort of other people around without actually wanting to directly interact. Even a slight bustle of activity can be conducive to getting in the working mood, for some.
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
The Treasury is pretty bad at judging value for money of course, but I do kind of get this - a Michael Gove knowing the party is going to be out of office in a few years and feeling emboldened to try something radical could splash money around like a fire hose.
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
Labours main policy platforms seem to be taxing non doms and abolishing the charitable status on private schools.
Starmers labour just seems to not want to scare anyone so it is steady as they go.
Perhaps he will revive the Ed Stone or the Blairite pledge card.
I cannot see me bothering to vote at the next GE. I wouldn’t vote Tory and have no enthusiasm for the alternatives.
I do have a small sum on labour as largest party from about 12 months ago.
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
We proved last evening that the wiki page averaging has Sunak just over 3% from the lowest averaging for Truss. Even HY surrendered in the end. And over the last few days PB has proved nothing has substantially moved in the polls for about 3 months. Except for sure, Sunak’s personal ratings have started to take a dive, and in his head to head best PM with Starmer (universally acknowledged a rating giving inbuilt advantage to incumbent) Starmer is stretching out a sizeable lead.
Would they really be in so deep if they had toughed it out with Boris for the full Parliamentary term? He was taking a midterm hammering from the media, but the polling wasn’t stuck anywhere near this crisis level.
The sack Boris to win the next election by giving someone else a try just just has not worked. Winning the next election is not losing all an eighty seat majority, or somehow clinging to power. It’s hard to see where the swingback for that is going to come from, so the objective now is hope for a hung Parliament and avoid such a reduction in seats coming back to government doesn’t seem such a mountain to climb?
No I didn't. As I made clear last night you included polls from after Truss resigned for Truss when Sunak was in effect PM elect and polls before the markets crashed for Truss too
Absolutely. As you made clear last night, Sunak has improved the Tories by an average of about 5%, taking into a account all the Truss period polls where they averaged 5% less than recent Sunak ones.
Whose side are you on?
Sunak has them just 3.3% off the floor is the main point here.
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
Does Rishi hope we forget about the first iteration of the track and trace app which didn't work and was overseen by failure extraordinaire Dido Harding, Charles' (formally of this parish) best friend?
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
We do, otherwise so much really old stuff - and often the same old stuff - wouldn't be always included in 'top tens'. Like with sport. We adjust for age. Give it its due regard. Eg prime Pele wouldn't get in the Man City team. Prime Rod Laver couldn't take a set of today's world number 20. Yet we - rightly imo - consider both to be all time greats. It's a bit different in the arts but not totally different. This factor still applies.
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
Labours main policy platforms seem to be taxing non doms and abolishing the charitable status on private schools.
Starmers labour just seems to not want to scare anyone so it is steady as they go.
Perhaps he will revive the Ed Stone or the Blairite pledge card.
I cannot see me bothering to vote at the next GE. I wouldn’t vote Tory and have no enthusiasm for the alternatives.
I do have a small sum on labour as largest party from about 12 months ago.
Don't worry the appointment of 30p Lee should be worth at least 40 seats at the GE. I hear reports of street parties and bunting being erected all across the nation.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
I think we do adjust those for age when assessing them. Quite a lot of great literature of the 19th Century is quite turgid and waffle to modern readers, as well as caring a great deal about issues considered trivial now. Simultaneously having prejudices and assumptions that would be quite grating in modern works. Colonialist, Imperialist, class and gender attitudes are rightly put in the context of their times, so why not other aspects of writing, or film?
Eye of the beholder, I guess Foxy.
Austen, Dickens, the Brontës, Collins, Hardy, Steinbeck, Hemmingway... all stand the test of time and, imo, require no 'allowance' for their age.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
Churchill. But he made his mark early on. Biden has been around for ever, but only got to the top spot when he was old. Also Reagan and Adenauer.
Mrs Thatcher was said by some to have lost her grip on reality by the end. It's a shame we do not have American-style term limits.
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
Labour won’t be releasing any concrete proposals until close to the next GE in case the Tories try and steal them. They shouldn’t bow to pressure from the media . They can give a general direction of travel but that should be all .
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
Labours main policy platforms seem to be taxing non doms and abolishing the charitable status on private schools.
Starmers labour just seems to not want to scare anyone so it is steady as they go.
Perhaps he will revive the Ed Stone or the Blairite pledge card.
I cannot see me bothering to vote at the next GE. I wouldn’t vote Tory and have no enthusiasm for the alternatives.
I do have a small sum on labour as largest party from about 12 months ago.
Does Rishi hope we forget about the first iteration of the track and trace app which didn't work and was overseen by failure extraordinaire Dido Harding, Charles' (formally of this parish) best friend?
Track and trace got a bad rap. If you ever used a ‘free’ test, that came from the money spent. The troubles at the Immensa lab and the resulting increase in cases in the SW showed that the system was working to help reduce the spread. The ap itself was clearly poorly executed and this was anticipated by the collective on PB.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
Churchill. But he made his mark early on. Biden has been around for ever, but only got to the top spot when he was old. Also Reagan and Adenauer.
Mrs Thatcher was said by some to have lost her grip on reality by the end. It's a shame we do not have American-style term limits.
Didn't Wilson resign because he knew he was declining mentally?
The number of trains running on HS2 will be almost halved and services will travel more slowly in a proposed shake-up of the £72bn line as ministers scramble to save money.
Whitehall officials are considering reducing the number of trains from 18 to 10 an hour, insiders said.
Meanwhile, plans to run services at up to 360 km/h (224 mph) are in jeopardy as officials weigh whether to reduce maximum speeds.
The proposals are among a series of cost-cutting measures under discussion as part of an overhaul codenamed Project Silverlight and Operation Blue Diamond, as ministers grapple with huge inflationary pressures on Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
The Department for Transport on Tuesday refused to rule out reducing the frequency and speed of HS2 trains.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
Churchill. But he made his mark early on. Biden has been around for ever, but only got to the top spot when he was old. Also Reagan and Adenauer.
Mrs Thatcher was said by some to have lost her grip on reality by the end. It's a shame we do not have American-style term limits.
Didn't Wilson resign because he knew he was declining mentally?
He'd been diagnosed with dementia as I recall, yes
A couple of weeks back I was in one of our offices on a Friday. Quietest day of the week, but I was there for an all day in person meeting,
Scattered around parts of the building were individuals, sat at least two banks of desks away from the next nearest person.
They certainly weren't there for collaboration and team building opportunities. Perhaps they just wanted to save money on their gas bills and drink the complimentary coffee?
Meanwhile in my office there is more of a problem with too many people turning up for work midweek. More people than desks. There is a standing request for departments to make Monday and Friday their "team days", but no groups appear to be keen on the idea. I do my bit by WFH most of the time to free up a desk for someone else.
People can want the comfort of other people around without actually wanting to directly interact. Even a slight bustle of activity can be conducive to getting in the working mood, for some.
We're all different, and I'm sure that's true of some. FWIW my colleagues in my office job are vociferous in disliking coming in to work when there isn't anything that needs joint physical planning. One recently commuted an hour each way to find just five other people in the office - he says he'd really rather do some voluntary overtime at home than waste his time like that.
I live 5 minutes from the office, so I don't care so much, though I'd certainly prefer to work entirely remotely - we've all got used to Teams/Zoom interaction and discussion, and we really don't hug each other or interact any more meaningfully when we meet in person. Recruitment of people who will have to move to Surrey is a challenge, too - too many competing organisations are now entirely WFH, so people can live in the cheapest area that they like and stay with their family and friends all the time.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
I think we do adjust those for age when assessing them. Quite a lot of great literature of the 19th Century is quite turgid and waffle to modern readers, as well as caring a great deal about issues considered trivial now. Simultaneously having prejudices and assumptions that would be quite grating in modern works. Colonialist, Imperialist, class and gender attitudes are rightly put in the context of their times, so why not other aspects of writing, or film?
And yet some of the best old movies haven’t really aged in that way. Almost exact Kane contemporary Casablanca, for instance.
My dad died yesterday peacefully. 96 years old so a good innings. Excellent care by the NHS since Christmas Day when he collapsed with covid.
Having been critical of @hyufd re his views on inheritance I am almost certainly going to do what he suggests. I am going to inherit half of a small semi. I can't spend the money I currently have before I die so will probably pass my inheritance to my children. Sigh.
Tories loving that one. Wow. Reform and Labour down whilst they go up, reducing the Labour lead by a full 2%. You know, if they reduced Labour lead by 2% every month to the election - Tory majority territory. This is so 1964 all over again, except the new Tory leader doesn’t have such a silly voice. Clearly all is still to play for.
Alternatively each poll sample is likely to have little margin of error movements here there, let’s spread out 9 Savanta in a row and see if there is any noticeable movement month on month over that time.
Anyone have a market for who the biggest Tory ramper would be?
Last year, would anyone have backed @MoonRabbit over @HYUFD for ToryRamper2023 ??
🤭 . .
2023 - Chinese Year of the MoonRabbit!!
It’s actually Water Rabbit.
And - by that astrology, including the five elements, I’m a Fire Rat.
The Chinese zodiac Fire Rat are smart, capable and generous, and they are good at socializing. They respond quickly and have strong environmental adaptability. They like all kinds of activities and can always provide interesting ideas. Chinese zodiac characteristics are very kind and considerate, so they can easily get along well with others. However, they lack internal control and discipline, so the most intolerable thing for them is that their freedom is restricted. They are so stubborn that they tend to do things in their own way, which may make others feel uncomfortable.
The Fire Rat may easily get injured when doing outdoors and dangerous activities When crossing the road or riding a bicycle, they should pay extra attention to the traffic conditions. Drivers in particular must obey traffic rules. Pay more attention to personal safety and some injuries can be avoided.
they are easily involved in romantic affairs.
The have a relatively good fortune luck in their lives. They can earn a lot of wealth by their cleverness.
He has however been clever enough to lay cover for his senility earlier during his career with plenty of gaffes at a younger age.
Joe Biden is definitely old, but is a remarkably effective president for someone supposedly senile. I would say he's the most effective president since Ronald Reagan in getting his agenda through and lining up the forces to that end.
That's a rather silly argument. If the local fish and chip shop owner kept burning himself and setting the place on fire due to senility, you wouldn't say 'Hmmm, he seems to run a very profitable chip shop for one so senile!' - either he is senile, and would be better placed elsewhere, or he isn't. If he is, responsibility for the 'effectiveness' of his administration clearly lies elsewhere.
It's a bit more interesting than that. Reagan definitely was senile, but he completely transformed American politics from a liberal consensus to a conservative one. Konrad Adenauer who I assess to be the greatest post-War leader edged into senility during his long span in office. It seems there can be a period where you can achieve great things before you are too far gone.
You're wrong on your final point. Biden is very hands-on. The effectiveness comes from him, not competent underlings.
I suppose the difference with the chip shop analogy, so far at least, is that he’s not burnt anywhere down.
Trying to think whether we’ve ever had a cabinet minister who was senile. Not that I can think of. They tend to be a bit younger in the UK.
Churchill. But he made his mark early on. Biden has been around for ever, but only got to the top spot when he was old. Also Reagan and Adenauer.
Mrs Thatcher was said by some to have lost her grip on reality by the end. It's a shame we do not have American-style term limits.
Didn't Wilson resign because he knew he was declining mentally?
Probably yes, although it has also been suggested that Wilson had long intended to retire then, but yes, Wilson had noticed the little grey cells were fading.
One of my old colleagues has suggested to me that Hogwarts Legacy is on course to do over $1bn in revenue not including add on sales. I hope companies learn that ignoring insane activists and the twitter mob is worth it. WB had a choice a few years ago to bow down and accept that they would never use the Harry Potter IP again or just ignore it all and continue anyway. They chose the latter and are about to have one of the best selling games ever not made by Sony or Nintendo and they have revitalised their premier brand licence after two or three flops in movies.
It's about time that more companies stop listening to the loud screeching and just get on and make content and products for the majority who enjoy it.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
I think that every film cliche was once a bright innovation, so the brilliance of CK is not so recognised. Its innovative plotting and tracking shots are now normal. Critics though are more likely to understand its significance so much more than a more recent audience.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
That sounds like total bollocks to me. There's definitely a market for slower, more contemplative movies even today. People enjoy longform content online in loads of ways as well, they are not incapable of enjoying slowly paced movies. It's just saying that people didn't 'get' a movie and that's their fault. Some movies won't appeal to some people by virtue of style or story, and that's fine, but people are often able to see the merits of a film even if it was not for them, and not destined for mass success. It'd be an excuse to use that approach.
As for Citizen Kane, I cannot judge it as I have not seen it, but I think the idea all the film critics who put it high on their list do so because they have a genuinely indepth knowledge of its merits, as they might have existed at the time for innovative filmmaking techniques, seems very optimistic. I don't think critics adjust their position on whether they think Cannibal Holocaust is a good movie or not because of its significance as a found footage movie. They judge it and other movies based on whether they think it is good on its own merits. CK apparently is still compelling for many people.
I am just saying that fashions change. For example I far prefer the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front to the current Netflix version. Sure, the original looks quite stagey and overacted to modern eyes, but I think that it's significance as the archetype of so many modern war films, far outweighs its faults.
All too often special effects make movies worse, being a substitute for a decent script and characterisation. Clearly something else that I am out of tune with modern times with.
There are still great films being made. Only you're not likely to find them at the Multiplex. I saw Aftersun about three weeks' ago - it's still haunting me. The Quiet Girl and The Worst Person in the World were also excellent films I've seen in the last 12 months.
The number of trains running on HS2 will be almost halved and services will travel more slowly in a proposed shake-up of the £72bn line as ministers scramble to save money.
Whitehall officials are considering reducing the number of trains from 18 to 10 an hour, insiders said.
Meanwhile, plans to run services at up to 360 km/h (224 mph) are in jeopardy as officials weigh whether to reduce maximum speeds.
The proposals are among a series of cost-cutting measures under discussion as part of an overhaul codenamed Project Silverlight and Operation Blue Diamond, as ministers grapple with huge inflationary pressures on Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
The Department for Transport on Tuesday refused to rule out reducing the frequency and speed of HS2 trains.
Let's just put this utter waste of money project out of its misery! We can use just half the cost of it to improve railways across the country in general.
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
I think we do adjust those for age when assessing them. Quite a lot of great literature of the 19th Century is quite turgid and waffle to modern readers, as well as caring a great deal about issues considered trivial now. Simultaneously having prejudices and assumptions that would be quite grating in modern works. Colonialist, Imperialist, class and gender attitudes are rightly put in the context of their times, so why not other aspects of writing, or film?
Eye of the beholder, I guess Foxy.
Austen, Dickens, the Brontës, Collins, Hardy, Steinbeck, Hemmingway... all stand the test of time and, imo, require no 'allowance' for their age.
A couple of weeks back I was in one of our offices on a Friday. Quietest day of the week, but I was there for an all day in person meeting,
Scattered around parts of the building were individuals, sat at least two banks of desks away from the next nearest person.
They certainly weren't there for collaboration and team building opportunities. Perhaps they just wanted to save money on their gas bills and drink the complimentary coffee?
Meanwhile in my office there is more of a problem with too many people turning up for work midweek. More people than desks. There is a standing request for departments to make Monday and Friday their "team days", but no groups appear to be keen on the idea. I do my bit by WFH most of the time to free up a desk for someone else.
I don't get why everyone seems to want to work Tuesday to Thursday in the office. I was doing hybrid working long before Covid and I always went in on a Friday. Trains were on time and I got a seat, much more pleasant all round. Then once in the office it was always possible to get a seat, unlike Wednesdays especially.
Also I think its better to break up the travelling days, much less stressful. If you live in London it doesn't really make much difference which day you commute.
How will running the trains more slowly save any money?
Trains in this country are already pathetically slow.
I think it might be something to do with the more expensive construction of the railbed to allow speeds above a certain level, but I don’t know much about the subject.
Genuinely idk what happened to Moon Rabbit but she’s now the most Tory poster on here. Embarrassing
Come on horse, why is someone posting views embarrassing? This site needs differences of opinion or it becomes an echo chamber. If you want that follow lefties on twitter.
Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this Government.
Time to go, GE now.
The trouble is I'm struggling to name a single Labour policy that will actually make things better.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
The trouble Labour has is there is no additional money to spend, except perhaps on investment.
There are plenty of pro-growth reform ideas out there that don't cost money. But if they are popular and centrist then the Tories will simply steal them. And if they are controversial then no need to create division as this stage in the election cycle.
Wait until 6-12 months from the election and find 3 to 5 key messages/policies that resonate widely. And be not the Tories. That will likely be enough for a majority.
Whether Starmer ends up being again good at actually governing remains to be seen. My fear is he plays it too safe and we end up with a continuation of managed decline that embodies the current government.
How will running the trains more slowly save any money?
Trains in this country are already pathetically slow.
Theory is that you don't have to build the tracks to such an expensive standard if the trains running over them aren't going quite as fast.
Whether that's a good idea, I don't know. HS2 is expensive, but some of the complaints are about confusing annual and one-off spending.
And part of the problem is that some people don't want money spent on anything that they won't benefit from personally; remember the age profile of the Conservative vote these days.
Vote Conservative- for a country that should last long enough to see you out.
Genuinely idk what happened to Moon Rabbit but she’s now the most Tory poster on here. Embarrassing
Come on horse, why is someone posting views embarrassing? This site needs differences of opinion or it becomes an echo chamber. If you want that follow lefties on twitter.
Got no issue with that.
It's doing a complete about turn from being leftie to being right wing in like two weeks.
Re WFH. I understand the long weekend if you are going away. But every week? Am I the only one whose favourite day to stay home would be Wednesday? Really makes the week easy. Did it last week with the strike.
Edit. I see @PJH made the same point. So I'm not the only one!
Surely every film should get a better rating from the audience than from critics? The audience is self selecting; those who think it will be a pile of shite don't go to watch it. However, critics are paid to watch it, and can't avoid it however bad they think it will be.
I suffered through about half of this film based on rave reviews from various critics. I should have trusted the viewing public instead.
And yes, there is a lot of potato peeling in it. Particularly well done in the second act.
A really interesting film, though builds very slowly.
The fact that Citizen Kane comes in the top five of every critic's 'best film of all time' list, tells you all you need to know about the rank stupidity of film critics.
Thing is, if you adjust for age - since films like most everything else are better now than they used to be - then CK really does belong in that top 5.
We don't adjust visual art, music or literature 'for age', so why films?
We do, otherwise so much really old stuff - and often the same old stuff - wouldn't be always included in 'top tens'. Like with sport. We adjust for age. Give it its due regard. Eg prime Pele wouldn't get in the Man City team. Prime Rod Laver couldn't take a set of today's world number 20. Yet we - rightly imo - consider both to be all time greats. It's a bit different in the arts but not totally different. This factor still applies.
Re Pele and Rod Laver, you should allow for the fact that the games have changed. E.g. Pele played with leather footballs, and super-sized and -strung rackets weren't available to Laver.
How will running the trains more slowly save any money?
Trains in this country are already pathetically slow.
Burns more electricity. Seriously.
Yep, high speed rail is not green.
The thing is, none of this is surprising. It’s expensive because the only way to make the numbers stack up from a business case perspective was to have it go very fast. It was never just about capacity.
Of course, the footprint of HS2 is that much wider to allow the trains to go super fast. A lot of the speed costs are sunk.
Comments
The Conservatives are doing better in the Midlands and Wales too on 31% and 30% respectively though which might explain it given the redwall seats there as well as the North
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-5-february-2023/
Mind you, the best barrister I know went to Queen Mary's London (where she got a first).
But though he is a bit elderly and so on he always sounds as if he is prefers to think kindly of things, and of people'; and this is unlike some others, and I greatly admire him for it.
My anecdotal evidence continues to suggest we are very much in a TWaT (Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays) commuting environment with Mondays and Fridays still very quiet on public transport in London.
A few large organisations and some fellow travellers notwithstanding, many have adapted quite easily and seamlessly to the new working world. As usual, "the public sector" is singled out because apparently all civil servants have to be at their desks every day.
I've always said home working isn't for everyone and I'm as much against forcing people to work at home as I would be forcing people to be at a desk. In truth, of course, if a team of 10 has 9 people happy to work a home, the other person who would rather be in the office with people becomes, if not a problem then a concern.
So much depends on the nature of the work, the nature of the staff and the nature of the organisation any top down mandated approach is doomed to failure. There was a notion to allow organisations and individuals to make their own choices (I believe it's called freedom) and the same should apply to "the public sector" (whatever that means). Indeed, I'd venture roles where you sit at a desk all day long aren't a) as prevalent as many believe and b) as rewarding as some think.
It's going to be interesting to watch how he handles Polly Samson's effort today against Roger Waters, in which she calls him all the names under the sun. Waters could perhaps have responded with something along the lines of "You're a f***ing idiot", but given the allegation that he is a thief he may well sue.
Some organisation (both public and private) have removed all contactability and aren't doing their jobs. Various local councils services are running - in the sense of the contractors do their thing - but there is no-one actually doing the management stuff that needs doing. The DVLA seems to have gone to the pub and not come back.
The problem comes in organisations that seem to have bad organisation and little way to track what is going on. Those who have experienced the culture, in some organisations, that sick leave is seen as "extra" leave, know exactly what is going on.
I think Jeanne Dielman is something that the attention deficit modern age struggles with. We bore much more easily, and are less open to building ominous scripting. We want instant in your face action.
This was made easier by modern airbag-style secondary suspensions (in addition to the traditional springs), but dynamics, and to a lesser extent tribilogy, is still an issue.
It's made worse by modern accessibility requirements, where gaps between platforms and doors have to be minimised. Hence why some modern trains have footboards that dynamically extend to reduce the gap.
It's why proving runs still happen: and still produce surprises on occasion.
Bottom line is, there on the graph is the lowest point Torirs have reached by averaging all polls, and there is Sunak just 3.3% above it.
These staff shortages do have a real impact on the service that's offered and it may be we are moving into a new era of inferior direct service with the anticipation or expectation more business is conducted digitally without human involvement (subject to the roll out of AI).
As for Citizen Kane, I cannot judge it as I have not seen it, but I think the idea all the film critics who put it high on their list do so because they have a genuinely indepth knowledge of its merits, as they might have existed at the time for innovative filmmaking techniques, seems very optimistic. I don't think critics adjust their position on whether they think Cannibal Holocaust is a good movie or not because of its significance as a found footage movie. They judge it and other movies based on whether they think it is good on its own merits. CK apparently is still compelling for many people.
I'd suggest there's definitely an advantage in very senior office in accepting your limitations and being able to delegate effectively and trust those around you.
Whereas those leaders that appoint teams of loyal numpties and then try and lead on everything themselves - both Trump and Johnson obviously come to mind - set themselves up to fail.
So much stuff in engineering was guestimation. Propellor design for ships was, until modern computers and turbulence modelling came in, educated guess work and "try this, because it kind of worked on a vaguely similar ship". They were figuring stuff out, even in the 80s and 90s, that had major performance effects.
I think that there is an issue with "sick organisations" - demotivated, disgruntled staff, who see WFH as an escape from the bullshit. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work for them".
A lot of services, public and private, are pretty dismal these days, but the idea that there's a seam of quality work that can be mined by forcing office drones back into the office seems pretty fanciful.
http://www.traintesting.com/images/HSFV1-DB.jpg
Although it and its siblings were designed to investigate high-speed freight, the knowledge gained from the tests fed into Japan and elsewhere for their 1st and 2nd generation high-speed trains.
Time to go, GE now.
All too often special effects make movies worse, being a substitute for a decent script and characterisation. Clearly something else that I am out of tune with modern times with.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/musk-says-he-saved-twitter-from-bankruptcy-but-it-still-has-big-money-problems/
I'm sure Morgan Stanley will sell you some debt if you ask nicely @MaxPB
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1623039022204391449
Hope it does what it says on the tin😀
A couple of weeks back I was in one of our offices on a Friday. Quietest day of the week, but I was there for an all day in person meeting,
Scattered around parts of the building were individuals, sat at least two banks of desks away from the next nearest person.
They certainly weren't there for collaboration and team building opportunities. Perhaps they just wanted to save money on their gas bills and drink the complimentary coffee?
Meanwhile in my office there is more of a problem with too many people turning up for work midweek. More people than desks. There is a standing request for departments to make Monday and Friday their "team days", but no groups appear to be keen on the idea. I do my bit by WFH most of the time to free up a desk for someone else.
The number of trains running on HS2 will be almost halved and services will travel more slowly in a proposed shake-up of the £72bn line as ministers scramble to save money.
Whitehall officials are considering reducing the number of trains from 18 to 10 an hour, insiders said.
Meanwhile, plans to run services at up to 360 km/h (224 mph) are in jeopardy as officials weigh whether to reduce maximum speeds.
The proposals are among a series of cost-cutting measures under discussion as part of an overhaul codenamed Project Silverlight and Operation Blue Diamond, as ministers grapple with huge inflationary pressures on Britain’s biggest infrastructure project.
The Department for Transport on Tuesday refused to rule out reducing the frequency and speed of HS2 trains.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/02/07/hs2-train-services-almost-halved-proposal-cut-costs/
I'm absolutely in agreement with you that special effects don't in themselves make a movie good, and good scripts and characterisation are far more important. Just recently I've watched some Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes but I couldn't get into Sherlock. I watched Tora Tora Tora, but Pearl Harbour was a snooze. Countless examples. Slightly hammy acting of an old movie is just a quirk to deal with, like that occasional thing the BBC has done with godawful audio mixing in the name of realism (though less annoying than that).
I don't agree with the comment that special effects make movies worse 'all too often', not least because movies use them in subtle ways many people probably don't realise, like the effects used in the movie Parasite. If effects is all the movie has going for it they cannot save it, and bad effects can be distracting and negative, but it's like saying the set design all too often makes a movie worse. If the other parts of the movie are decent the effects wouldn't matter so much, and might enhance it.
The Tories are crap, but what policies does Labour actually have that will fix things?
At the minute to win all Labour really have to do is to not be the party in power. And that means not really making any concrete policy announcements that could damage their lead in the polls - at the moment they're just following the "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake strategy"
But let's say there was a general election now, what would the new Labour government actually stand for? What would its policies be? How would they deal with the cost of living crisis?
Say what you like about Corbynism, at least you knew what the man stood for. What does the current iteration of the Labour party stand for, and how would it improve things?
It’s not even a yes or no answer, it’s a yes to that question isn’t it?
Nevermind. Are you sticking with your HY Local Election Forecast? Only 85 sleeps to go, and last we heard you said would be 28% for Tories - and not much seat losses as that same as they got in 2019 - and only 12% for Lib Dems. Kudos if you get anywhere close to that call more than 100 days from it.
You can always give us changed update on that whenever you like if you like, it will be no shame on you to move to 27-14 for example in light of Sunak’s personal poll slump.
We've been going to lots of funerals recently. Too much grim reaping going on.
Starmers labour just seems to not want to scare anyone so it is steady as they go.
Perhaps he will revive the Ed Stone or the Blairite pledge card.
I cannot see me bothering to vote at the next GE. I wouldn’t vote Tory and have no enthusiasm for the alternatives.
I do have a small sum on labour as largest party from about 12 months ago.
Sunak has them just 3.3% off the floor is the main point here.
@SunPolitics: More than 100,000 civil servants to strike on Budget Day https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21308669/more-than-100000-civil-servants-to-strike/
Austen, Dickens, the Brontës, Collins, Hardy, Steinbeck, Hemmingway... all stand the test of time and, imo, require no 'allowance' for their age.
The ap itself was clearly poorly executed and this was anticipated by the collective on PB.
Trains in this country are already pathetically slow.
I live 5 minutes from the office, so I don't care so much, though I'd certainly prefer to work entirely remotely - we've all got used to Teams/Zoom interaction and discussion, and we really don't hug each other or interact any more meaningfully when we meet in person. Recruitment of people who will have to move to Surrey is a challenge, too - too many competing organisations are now entirely WFH, so people can live in the cheapest area that they like and stay with their family and friends all the time.
Jeez, never thought I’d say that. But for the good of the country I need to get the Conservatives out.
Almost exact Kane contemporary Casablanca, for instance.
And - by that astrology, including the five elements, I’m a Fire Rat.
The Chinese zodiac Fire Rat are smart, capable and generous, and they are good at socializing. They respond quickly and have strong environmental adaptability. They like all kinds of activities and can always provide interesting ideas. Chinese zodiac characteristics are very kind and considerate, so they can easily get along well with others. However, they lack internal control and discipline, so the most intolerable thing for them is that their freedom is restricted. They are so stubborn that they tend to do things in their own way, which may make others feel uncomfortable.
The Fire Rat may easily get injured when doing outdoors and dangerous activities When crossing the road or riding a bicycle, they should pay extra attention to the traffic conditions. Drivers in particular must obey traffic rules. Pay more attention to personal safety and some injuries can be avoided.
they are easily involved in romantic affairs.
The have a relatively good fortune luck in their lives. They can earn a lot of wealth by their cleverness.
All true 😊
It's about time that more companies stop listening to the loud screeching and just get on and make content and products for the majority who enjoy it.
Also I think its better to break up the travelling days, much less stressful. If you live in London it doesn't really make much difference which day you commute.
There are plenty of pro-growth reform ideas out there that don't cost money. But if they are popular and centrist then the Tories will simply steal them. And if they are controversial then no need to create division as this stage in the election cycle.
Wait until 6-12 months from the election and find 3 to 5 key messages/policies that resonate widely. And be not the Tories. That will likely be enough for a majority.
Whether Starmer ends up being again good at actually governing remains to be seen. My fear is he plays it too safe and we end up with a continuation of managed decline that embodies the current government.
Do you even read other peoples comments?
Whether that's a good idea, I don't know. HS2 is expensive, but some of the complaints are about confusing annual and one-off spending.
And part of the problem is that some people don't want money spent on anything that they won't benefit from personally; remember the age profile of the Conservative vote these days.
Vote Conservative- for a country that should last long enough to see you out.
It's doing a complete about turn from being leftie to being right wing in like two weeks.
As I said, she's not here seriously.
Am I the only one whose favourite day to stay home would be Wednesday?
Really makes the week easy. Did it last week with the strike.
Edit. I see @PJH made the same point.
So I'm not the only one!
The thing is, none of this is surprising. It’s expensive because the only way to make the numbers stack up from a business case perspective was to have it go very fast. It was never just about capacity.
Of course, the footprint of HS2 is that much wider to allow the trains to go super fast. A lot of the speed costs are sunk.