Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
And as the senators emerge from a classified briefing, the real story emerges ; of uncertainty - not the false certainties of the over-self consciously skeptic, such as in the article below, and unfortunately a strong trend amongst the scientifically educated in recent years, often in areas outside their particular expertise. That leads me to think that some aspects of that are in danger of becoming cultural, rather than scientific.
In the words of those who've received the classified briefing today, rather than lapped up presentation from the White House : "These objects have been flying over us for years, many years. We've known about those objects for many years. We're not sure that we've known about all of them, but we've known about many of them. Except for the Chinese spy balloon, we don't know what they are."
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
First Milk Jan 2022: First Milk has today announced that its member milk price will increase by 2ppl with effect from January 1, 2022. This takes its standard litre price to 34 ppl on a manufacturing price schedule, including its member premium and all other standard litre bonuses and charges.
Jan 2023: First Milk has today confirmed that its member milk price will remain unchanged for January 2023 at 49.69ppl on a manufacturing standard litre, including the member premium and regenerative farming bonus.
So yes, food inflation on basics does look pretty high.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
That sounds a lot more reasonable
If people had run with 12.64 for 3 days I would agree the poor deserve more, sadly people prefer to play silly buggers and not apply common sense to numbers and go nah that doesnt make sense. So instead of people feeling the poor could do with more they leave people going wtf I don't spend that much no sympathy. They hurt the poor therefore while pretending to be supporting them
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
I'm fairly profligate with my food budget and live alone - but a tenner a day seems like quite a bit. Unless they are keeping people on 'day zero' kinda cookery.
A big pot of stew could be a tenner and last a few days - even without going to the 'desperate' lengths of eating lentils or beans.
I do appreciate a lot of people have almost zero idea how to cook mind you. But that's another 'saving' to the education budget.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
I'm fairly profligate with my food budget and live alone - but a tenner a day seems like quite a bit. Unless they are keeping people on 'day zero' kinda cookery.
A big pot of stew could be a tenner and last a few days - even without going to the 'desperate' lengths of eating lentils or beans.
I do appreciate a lot of people have almost zero idea how to cook mind you. But that's another 'saving' to the education budget.
See nigelb's post its bollocks and the true price is 12.74 per 3 days
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
That sounds a lot more reasonable
Always a good idea to check before going on the attack. I’ve failed to do so plenty of times myself, so I’m not having a go.
There’s little doubt that inflation has hit a lot of low earners quite hard, and it’s not just because people are feckless. FWIW, in my admittedly limited experience, I think food banks tend to be run by pretty good folk doing their level best.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
That sounds a lot more reasonable
Always a good idea to check before going on the attack. I’ve failed to do so plenty of times myself, so I’m not having a go.
There’s little doubt that inflation has hit a lot of low earners quite hard, and it’s not just because people are feckless. FWIW, in my admittedly limited experience, I think food banks tend to be run by pretty good folk doing their level best.
I was only on the attack about the figures and as usual its the guardian getting them wrong. Giving out such info however as I pointed out actually hurts the poor because people go wtf I am single and spend far less than that rather than seeing the correct number where single people go yeah they need a boost
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
That sounds a lot more reasonable
Always a good idea to check before going on the attack. I’ve failed to do so plenty of times myself, so I’m not having a go.
There’s little doubt that inflation has hit a lot of low earners quite hard, and it’s not just because people are feckless. FWIW, in my admittedly limited experience, I think food banks tend to be run by pretty good folk doing their level best.
Around my neck of the woods, there has been some... competition. Apparently, someone tried telling the Seventh Day Adventists that offering food parcels was undercutting the "proper" food banks.
Sadly, whenever a thing becomes big enough, the scumbags appear.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
If all else failed Pagan, you could always eat that chip on your shoulder.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
If all else failed Pagan, you could always eat that chip on your shoulder.
Challenging obviously bogus figures is having a chip on your shoulder? Well its a view...
Well at least Rishi has something arguably positive for him ie 'rich' as his biggest word, unlike 'Don't Know' for Starmer or 'Independence' for Sturgeon which says nothing about her personally
I don't think it is a positive for most people, although perhaps it is for more voters than pbers would presume.
Aspirational - If we work hard we too could marry a billionaire's daughter?
(Yes, I know he was a success too).
Not really, more that some people are genuinely enamoured with the rich. There are plenty of magazines that confirm this. Lynton Crosby opined that one of the reasons people vote Tory is that even if they don't really like them, perhaps the Conservatives know a thing or two about money. They seem to have plenty of it.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
If it's true that Sturgeon is going to stand down it will be a minor political earthquake. She's the last party leader from the time of the EU referendum still standing so it would be another step into a new era for UK politics.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
Well at least Rishi has something arguably positive for him ie 'rich' as his biggest word, unlike 'Don't Know' for Starmer or 'Independence' for Sturgeon which says nothing about her personally
I don't think it is a positive for most people, although perhaps it is for more voters than pbers would presume.
Aspirational - If we work hard we too could marry a billionaire's daughter?
(Yes, I know he was a success too).
Not really, more that some people are genuinely enamoured with the rich. There are plenty of magazines that confirm this. Lynton Crosby opined that one of the reasons people vote Tory is that even if they don't really like them, perhaps the Conservatives know a thing or two about money. They seem to have plenty of it.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
A 38% rise would put that at £17.44 now.
The journalist probably assumed the press release was wrong… after all avocado toast in JoJos is£17.50 so that can’t *possibly* be the cost of food for a week…
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
Russian-linked malware was close to putting U.S. electric, gas facilities ‘offline’ last year https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/14/russia-malware-electric-gas-facilities-00082675 Hackers linked to Russia got very close to being able to take a dozen U.S. electric and gas facilities offline in the first weeks of the war in Ukraine, the head of a top cybersecurity company warned Tuesday.
Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of Dragos, which helps companies respond to cyberattacks, said hackers with a group Dragos calls “Chernovite” were using a malicious software to try to take down “around a dozen” U.S. electric and liquid natural gas sites.
“This is the closest we’ve ever been to having U.S. or European infrastructure, I’d say U.S. infrastructure, go offline,” Lee told reporters in a briefing. “It wasn’t employed on one of its targets, they weren’t ready to pull the trigger, they were getting very close.” Lee declined to offer details on what prevented the attack from succeeding, but said it was halted by a coalition of U.S. government and cyber industry groups…
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
You obviously fail here to see the point I wasn't attacking the poor but the ridiculous figures the guardian put out. I also said that there stupid use of false figures harmed the poor because people look at them and go....I spend less that that by far they don't need me to contribute to food banks if that is what they are getting.
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
Brown loved performative bullshit regulation. Every derivatives trader buying/selling CDO had done (or got a desk junior) to do all their multiple choice exams on How Not To Commit Fraud.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
You obviously fail here to see the point I wasn't attacking the poor but the ridiculous figures the guardian put out. I also said that there stupid use of false figures harmed the poor because people look at them and go....I spend less that that by far they don't need me to contribute to food banks if that is what they are getting.
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
'Journalist gets figures wrong' is hardly noteworthy.
I doubt the published figures will influence food bank donations one iota; most people donating to foodbanks are not comparing what the foodbanks give out with what they themselves consider is a reasonable 3-day package of food.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
You obviously fail here to see the point I wasn't attacking the poor but the ridiculous figures the guardian put out. I also said that there stupid use of false figures harmed the poor because people look at them and go....I spend less that that by far they don't need me to contribute to food banks if that is what they are getting.
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
'Journalist gets figures wrong' is hardly noteworthy.
I doubt the published figures will influence food bank donations one iota; most people donating to foodbanks are not comparing what the foodbanks give out with what they themselves consider is a reasonable 3-day package of food.
I hope the food bank donations aren't affect however I am saying its not helpful to them at best. Why you think me calling the figures bollocks is "a chip on my shoulder" I am bemused by however
If it's true that Sturgeon is going to stand down it will be a minor political earthquake. She's the last party leader from the time of the EU referendum still standing so it would be another step into a new era for UK politics.
If it's true? The only thing that I could think of that could cause this in the near future would be the £600,000 thing.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The unpublished Truss Growth master plan also hinged on scrapping financial regulation, including:
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The unpublished Truss Growth master plan also hinged on scrapping financial regulation, including:
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The unpublished Truss Growth master plan also hinged on scrapping financial regulation, including:
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
CDO 2.0, what could possibly go wrong?
These people are so braindead, it's genuinely staggering. At this rate I begin to wonder if the Tory Party is beyond saving.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The Tories were idiots to propose that and the fact they were matching Brown's spending levels still means he was setting level at which they matched. Which makes him responsible.
And I don't believe they said he regulated financial debt too much. People like Redwood were arguing the reverse.
And regardless, the Tories also being shit doesn't absolve Brown blame from being shit.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
You obviously fail here to see the point I wasn't attacking the poor but the ridiculous figures the guardian put out. I also said that there stupid use of false figures harmed the poor because people look at them and go....I spend less that that by far they don't need me to contribute to food banks if that is what they are getting.
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
'Journalist gets figures wrong' is hardly noteworthy.
I doubt the published figures will influence food bank donations one iota; most people donating to foodbanks are not comparing what the foodbanks give out with what they themselves consider is a reasonable 3-day package of food.
I hope the food bank donations aren't affect however I am saying its not helpful to them at best. Why you think me calling the figures bollocks is "a chip on my shoulder" I am bemused by however
You appear to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about foodbanks, about people using foodbanks, about public sector workers, about other people doing well while your income unaccountably stagnates... I could go on.
You come across as rather misanthropic. Sorry but there it is.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The unpublished Truss Growth master plan also hinged on scrapping financial regulation, including:
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
Gordon Brown's interventions were the right ones given the situation we were in and the phase of the economic cycle. But the situation we were in was substantially of his own making. He designed the inadequate financial regulatory setup, which had to be scrapped and redesigned post crisis.
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
The Tories proposed to match his spending and said he regulated too much. So we would have been worse off with them.
The unpublished Truss Growth master plan also hinged on scrapping financial regulation, including:
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
Truss was an idiot. Next.
Next was Sunak the Idiot.
But Sunak isn't an idiot. He just lacks boldness or charisma.
The Romanian air force sent fighter jets to intercept a weather balloon at 36,000 feet. They couldn't find it when they got there.
Moldova shut its airspace due to the presence in it, near the city of Soroca, of a flying object "similar to a weather balloon". (Source: Moldovan state press agency.) The country's airspace was closed for 82 minutes.
The Moldovan PM has been in Brussels.
The fnords are getting together when nobody's looking and making babies. And fnordlings mature fast! Who could possibly have predicted a Russia-UFO liaison? (Apart from me, that is. If there were a betting market on what topics were going to be in media headlines in the near future I would already have made enough money to buy my own UFOs and spook the hell out of everybody.)
I love this headline in the Guardian: "Prepare for wave of extraterrestrial sightings in UK, say UFO experts". I haven't read the article. So many pieces in Britain's media today refer to what "experts" have said. Experts on what to do in circumstances of a type they first encountered 10 minutes ago, or experts on what might happen when they haven't got a clue either about what might happen or about how to think about what might happen.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers. But also this is the cost to the charity, not what you can pick up cheaply on the spot. Did you allow for your petrol/electricity and car depreciation/capital costs?
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
I dont have a car and dont drive, still fails the point you can buy cod and chips 7 nights a week at a takeaway for less than their standard basket. Which tells me they are talking bollocks.
If I wanted to cut costs I could get enough calories, vitamins and minerals for far less than that a week and still not goto bed hungry or underfed. For example I can make a spag bol that feeds me for three days...2*passata = 4£, 500g of mushrooms 2.39, 2 onions .0.80£ 1kg of spaghetti 1.89. 3 peppers 1.29£ minced beef 500g = 6.00 total cost for 3 days = 16£ approximately....I can afford 250g of cheese to grate without even approaching 34£
Not everyone is such a superb example of well adjusted humanity as your good self.
If food banks are claiming it costs that much to feed a single person for one day my suspicion is someone is pocketing money somewhere. I dont eat poorly and eat meat often but don't think when catering purely for me I have ever spent more than 50 to 60 just for me and thats on weeks I decide I may want a steak one night for the more expensive end. It is not about being well adjusted its just basically needing to be able to cook. I was round my supermarket earlier.....if you cant cook they had plenty of ready meals where if you buy 2 you get it for 6 pounds. 7 * 6£ is still only 42 pounds well short of the 79£ they are claiming so even if you cant fucking cook....
...and we are back to the charity industry.
See nigelb's post as I suspected its bollocks
Equally possible, I think.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
The Guardian editing isn’t always the most accurate. And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
I suspect they felt it was worth making a political point rather than reflect reality
The point of the story was basically correct. (I could find you plenty more similar food inflation figures for food staples to go with the milk one above.)
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
I wasnt suggesting food inflation is not a thing by any means, I was merely challenging the 80£ a week for a single person figure.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
HMG reckon a single person can eat for £77.29 per week less whatever they spend on clothes, toiletries, fuel, phones, internet, insurance, transport/car, TV.
You obviously fail here to see the point I wasn't attacking the poor but the ridiculous figures the guardian put out. I also said that there stupid use of false figures harmed the poor because people look at them and go....I spend less that that by far they don't need me to contribute to food banks if that is what they are getting.
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
'Journalist gets figures wrong' is hardly noteworthy.
I doubt the published figures will influence food bank donations one iota; most people donating to foodbanks are not comparing what the foodbanks give out with what they themselves consider is a reasonable 3-day package of food.
I hope the food bank donations aren't affect however I am saying its not helpful to them at best. Why you think me calling the figures bollocks is "a chip on my shoulder" I am bemused by however
You appear to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about foodbanks, about people using foodbanks, about public sector workers, about other people doing well while your income unaccountably stagnates... I could go on.
You come across as rather misanthropic. Sorry but there it is.
I pointed out people on 30k to 40k a year dont need food banks unless they are having budgeting issues. My problem with public sector workers is mostly they are useless and yes I have worked alongside a lot of them and I object to them getting pensions that most people will never get but them never counting it as part of their pay....for example a public sector worker on 30k is pretty much on 40 k if you include pension contributions where as a private sector worker on 35k is on about 37k including pension contributions yet the public sector worker will point at the private sector worker and say look we are under paid.
And yes most people in the bottom 50% of society have had their pay stagnate apart from those on minimum wage. Sorry you object to me saying it but they are all facts.
median wage in 2005 was 431£ in 2020 it was 585.70£ inflation adjusted median wage should have been 654£. Maybe you don't call that stagnating and you would be right the median worker in the uk was as of 2020 11% worse off than in 2005
Well, well. The SITE Intelligence Group (they're the outfit that stamps jihadist murder videos as genuine for the western media) have declared that msleading claims about the airborne devices have prompted violent threats.
It's interesting that they're interested.
Meanwhile, almost every berk in an official position seems to be spouting the word "misinformation" right now.
Conjecture and speculation have also been ruled as bad.
Coming soon to a prison near you: "I killed 10 people. What are you inside for?" "Oh, I speculated about a UFO. Got done for unlicenced public conjecturing".
The one in the Yukon is going to be almost impossible to find.
Quick 🧵 on why the last three objects shot down are so hard to find, especially compared to the first. I have had some inquiries on this, so here goes: The Chinese Spy Balloon was very large, with a huge towering envelope and large payload truss... https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1625685183373672450
“Urgent. Find that person and dismiss them.” … “He bought the company, made a point of showcasing what he believed was broken and manipulated under previous management, then turns around and manipulates the platform to force engagement on all users to hear only his voice,” said a current employee. “I think we’re past the point of believing that he actually wants what’s best for everyone here.”
“Urgent. Find that person and dismiss them.” … “He bought the company, made a point of showcasing what he believed was broken and manipulated under previous management, then turns around and manipulates the platform to force engagement on all users to hear only his voice,” said a current employee. “I think we’re past the point of believing that he actually wants what’s best for everyone here.”
You know, I'm beginning to think about shorting TSLA here.
Well, well. The SITE Intelligence Group (they're the outfit that stamps jihadist murder videos as genuine for the western media) have declared that msleading claims about the airborne devices have prompted violent threats.
It's interesting that they're interested.
Meanwhile, almost every berk in an official position seems to be spouting the word "misinformation" right now.
Conjecture and speculation have also been ruled as bad.
Coming soon to a prison near you: "I killed 10 people. What are you inside for?" "Oh, I speculated about a UFO. Got done for unlicenced public conjecturing".
It seems strange that balloons and other flying objects have suddenly become so apparent in the last few weeks.
It's not that surprising:
Historically, radar systems were set to "tune out" slow moving objects.
Now that one spy balloon was found, the settings were changed and therefore we're now seeing loads of objects that were previously ignored.
Civilian primary radar has also been mostly replaced in recent years with only secondary radar - so it’s now only the military looking at primary returns, and in the past week or two they’ve changed their focus a little.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
“Urgent. Find that person and dismiss them.” … “He bought the company, made a point of showcasing what he believed was broken and manipulated under previous management, then turns around and manipulates the platform to force engagement on all users to hear only his voice,” said a current employee. “I think we’re past the point of believing that he actually wants what’s best for everyone here.”
Shouldn't be difficult to find Musk if he's making himself that vis...oh, sorry, did you mean his critic?
It seems strange that balloons and other flying objects have suddenly become so apparent in the last few weeks.
It's not that surprising:
Historically, radar systems were set to "tune out" slow moving objects.
Now that one spy balloon was found, the settings were changed and therefore we're now seeing loads of objects that were previously ignored.
Civilian primary radar has also been mostly replaced in recent years with only secondary radar - so it’s now only the military looking at primary returns, and in the past week or two they’ve changed their focus a little.
From my PPL days (2000-2003), I'd guess that's been true for at least a quarter century.
It seems strange that balloons and other flying objects have suddenly become so apparent in the last few weeks.
It's not that surprising:
Historically, radar systems were set to "tune out" slow moving objects.
Now that one spy balloon was found, the settings were changed and therefore we're now seeing loads of objects that were previously ignored.
That also explains why they can now say there were overflights of spy balloons during the Trump Presidency that weren't noticed at the time. Presumably they have the raw radar data and have reprocessed it with the new settings.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
It's a bit macabre, but if you looked at the longest time someone was rescued alive from the rubble after previous earthquakes I'm guessing that when that time is longer there are more deaths, because more people trapped under the rubble increases the chances that one of them will survive an unlikely long period of time to be rescued.
So you can probably use that time to estimate the total number of deaths. So I'd guess that the death toll has a considerable way to rise yet.
It seems strange that balloons and other flying objects have suddenly become so apparent in the last few weeks.
It's not that surprising:
Historically, radar systems were set to "tune out" slow moving objects.
Now that one spy balloon was found, the settings were changed and therefore we're now seeing loads of objects that were previously ignored.
Note there’s an awful lot of junk flying over 50k feet up. 1800 weather balloons alone are sent up every day.
The payload on Meet Office weather balloons always used to have a tag along anyone who found it to post it back to the Met Office. Sometimes someone would do this.
I thought the weather balloons were designed in such a way that they burst and so wouldn't persist in the atmosphere. If they started floating around indefinitely, a bit like the ocean Argo floats, then they would provide masses more useful meteorological data.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
+1 someone asked me to ask GPT whether HS2 should be built - it provided phd level politician waffle with no clear answer although the pro hs2 arguments were great for the Labour Party up North (because the pro arguments were economic generation up north which is now cancelled with hs2).
Worth saying the one thing it won’t do and clearly isn’t designed to do is to actual make a decision.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
That's an inevitable consequence of the way in which the model works, and the programmers attempt to avoid a repeat of the racist chatbot debacle.
Because it's essentially only an autocomplete algorithm with a very large training dataset, it's impossible for the chatbot to come to its own judgement about which of two arguments are better (more consistent with known facts, logically self-consistent, etc). This is why it makes so many mistakes, or passes off gibberish in such a confident seeming way. And it means it will regurgitate a lot of conspiracy theories, or hateful rubbish, unless it's specifically told not to.
Well, well. The SITE Intelligence Group (they're the outfit that stamps jihadist murder videos as genuine for the western media) have declared that msleading claims about the airborne devices have prompted violent threats.
It's interesting that they're interested.
Meanwhile, almost every berk in an official position seems to be spouting the word "misinformation" right now.
Conjecture and speculation have also been ruled as bad.
Coming soon to a prison near you: "I killed 10 people. What are you inside for?" "Oh, I speculated about a UFO. Got done for unlicenced public conjecturing".
I think there's two separate issues - clear global campaigns of disinformation by state and private actors, such as those revealed today by the Guardian, and the Guardian's conflation of the official uncertainty over the balloons, often dressed up as certainty in the last few days for reasons of reassurance, with "misinformation" by those pointing this out.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
That's an inevitable consequence of the way in which the model works, and the programmers attempt to avoid a repeat of the racist chatbot debacle.
Because it's essentially only an autocomplete algorithm with a very large training dataset, it's impossible for the chatbot to come to its own judgement about which of two arguments are better (more consistent with known facts, logically self-consistent, etc). This is why it makes so many mistakes, or passes off gibberish in such a confident seeming way. And it means it will regurgitate a lot of conspiracy theories, or hateful rubbish, unless it's specifically told not to.
The problem is it's been programmed with the shibboleths of left-leaning culture and presents its opinions confidently as facts.
While I'm able to use a bit of promptcraft to get around it, most people are using ChatGPT as a kind of Google Search (heck, it's been integrated into Bing). And we are back to the problems of search engines being biased gateways to information. The difference is that Google will present you with 100 different results and 100 different arguments, whereas ChatGPT gives you one answer and tells you that it's true.
It's an immensely harmful precedent and a terrifying glimpse into our future, where wrongthink will be largely impossible because people have become reliant on the machines to think for them, and the machines will give responses that control dissenting thought.
I am very, very, very worried about the bias being deliberately programmed into ChatGPT and how it will shape future opinion and stifle dissenting voices.
The difference is that Google will present you with 100 different results and 100 different arguments, whereas ChatGPT gives you one answer and tells you that it's true.
I can't recall a single instance of Bing returning a search result that was actually the thing I was looking for, whereas Google does it many times a day.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Interesting update on food banks. Notably the 'actual' rate of inflation at poor folk's level for food buying. This will be bulk at the cash and carry, but even so ... where's that 30p a meal going to get you?
"In February 2022, the cost of the items in a standard parcel (enough to feed one person for three days) came to £24.78. Today an equivalent food parcel costs £34.11, an increase of £9.33 or nearly 38%. A children’s food parcel is up by £8.24 to £25.75, a jump of 47%."
Ok see this bemuses me....I shop for myself and manage to spend just under 50£ for 7 days...according to the standard parcel that would cost 79.95.....I am well fed and often end up with food left over.....sorry if I don't put much faith in their figures
I suspect the joirnalist has made an error as to what a standard parcel covers..
The inflation cost is the key element, anyway.
You’d be right; it looks like an editing error of some kind. This is from the linked article 12 months ago: … The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
That sounds a lot more reasonable
If people had run with 12.64 for 3 days I would agree the poor deserve more, sadly people prefer to play silly buggers and not apply common sense to numbers and go nah that doesnt make sense. So instead of people feeling the poor could do with more they leave people going wtf I don't spend that much no sympathy. They hurt the poor therefore while pretending to be supporting them
Yes, that's not far off £34 a *week* which makes more sense. It does depend what dates one is starting from, so there is a bit of a margin of uncertainty.
The inflation figure remains an important issue, in any case.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I agree but controlling inflation is a necessary condition for an economic recovery. If that can be achieved without a big recession then that's the best possible outcome.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
So, whatever the legal position it seems "Self-ID" is now being socially accepted quite widely.
I didn't really think there was any controversy about that? The vast majority of people are happy to address people in the way that they want to be. Basic decency.
It's just when there is a conflict with other existing rights or responsibilities where there is a debate. Medical intervention for children, sport, prisons and similar state institutions.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I agree but controlling inflation is a necessary condition for an economic recovery. If that can be achieved without a big recession then that's the best possible outcome.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
Not unless the Ukraine war has ended, that remains the biggest driver of inflation of all
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I agree but controlling inflation is a necessary condition for an economic recovery. If that can be achieved without a big recession then that's the best possible outcome.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
The next few months should see something of a fall in the headline rate, as the price rises from the same last last year fall out of the calculations. Some decisive action in Ukraine, that leads to energy futures falling for this winter, might even see a negative headline rate by the end of the summer.
On the subject of Ukraine, there’s a NATO summit in Brussels today and tomorrow. The two major concerns are of supplies of ammunition for NATO kit in Ukraine, and rumours of a Russian buildup of more tanks and planes close to the border.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I agree but controlling inflation is a necessary condition for an economic recovery. If that can be achieved without a big recession then that's the best possible outcome.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
Absolutely it needs to be brought under control! There is a much wider issue though which has been bubbling away for he last decade - the cost of living is too high.
Fundamentally we are all paying what seems to be ever larger amounts of money to do the absolute basics. Some of this is largely down to external factors - food prices as an example. But Rent isn't. Energy isn't. Fuel isn't. Childcare. Rail tickets. There's an endless list of things that we all need which are very much more expensive compared to other countries in Europe.
A lot of this is structural. We have chosen market defined prices for a lot of this whereas other nations impose prices for the wider good of the economy. But we either start to address this or we can never get to the bigger issues.
There is a lot of moaning from the right about low productivity. Yet when so many jobs are so badly paid, with poor workers right and conditions. With high cost of entry to the job - commuting and childcare costs can make not working the better option. Is it any wonder that British workers feel under the cosh?
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
So, whatever the legal position it seems "Self-ID" is now being socially accepted quite widely.
I didn't really think there was any controversy about that? The vast majority of people are happy to address people in the way that they want to be. Basic decency.
It's just when there is a conflict with other existing rights or responsibilities where there is a debate. Medical intervention for children, sport, prisons and similar state institutions.
So how should the school deal with a child like this in terms of PE etc?
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
A single one line thought from this week's Economist (on academic freedom but universally applicable), worth all the rest put together:
"liberalism depends on taking an opponent's argument seriously and learning from it".
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
The next three months were big for inflation in 2022. If prices stay level for the next three months this year, then the annual rate of inflation will fall to 5.3%
Yes and that inflation over the last 3 months (since the last price cap increase) has been just 0.2%. It's very encouraging.
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
Even if the rate of inflation falls we will still see prices going up even further from the already unaffordable levels they are at now.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
I agree but controlling inflation is a necessary condition for an economic recovery. If that can be achieved without a big recession then that's the best possible outcome.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
Absolutely it needs to be brought under control! There is a much wider issue though which has been bubbling away for he last decade - the cost of living is too high.
Fundamentally we are all paying what seems to be ever larger amounts of money to do the absolute basics. Some of this is largely down to external factors - food prices as an example. But Rent isn't. Energy isn't. Fuel isn't. Childcare. Rail tickets. There's an endless list of things that we all need which are very much more expensive compared to other countries in Europe.
A lot of this is structural. We have chosen market defined prices for a lot of this whereas other nations impose prices for the wider good of the economy. But we either start to address this or we can never get to the bigger issues.
There is a lot of moaning from the right about low productivity. Yet when so many jobs are so badly paid, with poor workers right and conditions. With high cost of entry to the job - commuting and childcare costs can make not working the better option. Is it any wonder that British workers feel under the cosh?
And one of us on PB will be delighted with this, as it is great news for Tory pensioners:
Between July 2021 and July 2022, the average UK house price increased by £39,000, meaning many homeowners earned more money with their house than in their job, as the current average salary for full-time UK employees is £33,000 as of November 2022, according to ONS.
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient. You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
My main problem with chatGPT is it has a left-liberal bias and presents only one side of the argument, i.e. the left-liberal one. My second problem is that it won't even discuss the other sides of the argument (see the famous tweet about it refusing to discuss the good things about fossil fuels). Finally, instead of just saying "I can't help you with that problem" it gives you a moralising lecture about why you're wrong.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Interesting to see how the press is handling the knife death of the Warrington teenager. Even the Daily Mail is referring to her as a schoolgirl.
So, whatever the legal position it seems "Self-ID" is now being socially accepted quite widely.
I didn't really think there was any controversy about that? The vast majority of people are happy to address people in the way that they want to be. Basic decency.
It's just when there is a conflict with other existing rights or responsibilities where there is a debate. Medical intervention for children, sport, prisons and similar state institutions.
So how should the school deal with a child like this in terms of PE etc?
That's where it gets tricky! I just meant that talking and referring to someone as they wish is just being polite and we should do it regardless of where we land on PE and so on.
Maybe I'm unusual for seeing a clear distinction here?
I didn't think it was that much of a surprise that the Daily Mail was referring to her as a girl, particularly given the circumstances.
Well, well. The SITE Intelligence Group (they're the outfit that stamps jihadist murder videos as genuine for the western media) have declared that msleading claims about the airborne devices have prompted violent threats.
It's interesting that they're interested.
Meanwhile, almost every berk in an official position seems to be spouting the word "misinformation" right now.
Conjecture and speculation have also been ruled as bad.
Coming soon to a prison near you: "I killed 10 people. What are you inside for?" "Oh, I speculated about a UFO. Got done for unlicenced public conjecturing".
I think there's two separate issues - clear global campaigns of disinformation by state and private actors, such as those revealed today by the Guardian, and the Guardian's conflation of the official uncertainty over the balloons, often dressed up as certainty in the last few days for reasons of reassurance, with "misinformation" by those pointing this out.
Where did the Guardian describe uncertainty about the UFOs as 'misinformation'?
But DJ41a's post points to 2 things: 1) SITE being interested in violent threats, which seems unremarkable as it is what SITE claims is exactly what they do. It seems to come from this in the same AP article linked to above:
"Misleading claims about the airborne devices have also prompted violent threats, according to an analysis by the SITE Intelligence Group, a firm that tracks extremist rhetoric online. After the White House said earlier surveillance flights went undetected during Donald Trump’s presidency, an article circulated on far-right sites urging the execution of any Trump administration officials who may have withheld the information."
Is this grounds for being worried that people speculating about UFOs might end up in prison? Absurd.
2) This paragraph in the same article: "The downing of four aerial devices by U.S. warplanes has touched off rampant misinformation about the objects, their origin and their purpose, showing how complicated world events and a lack of information can quickly create the perfect conditions for unchecked conjecture and misinformation." How fair that is depends on whether you think the examples it then gives (Biden shot things down to distract from a chemical leak/“Maybe Joe built the balloon & had Hunter launch it to scare we the people!”/it's aliens) are misinformation or not.
Maybe it is impossible to be 100% sure that it isn't aliens. In the same way that you can't 100% rule out that the disappearance of the woman walking her dog wasn't an alien abduction. But there's usually a big dose of what can be fairly described as misinformation by people making claims about aliens.
Comments
This is from the linked article 12 months ago:
… The cost of the groceries in one of its standard parcels (enough to feed one person for three days) has increased by 71p – nearly 6% – to £12.64…
A 38% rise would put that at £17.44 now.
In the words of those who've received the classified briefing today, rather than lapped up presentation from the White House : "These objects have been flying over us for years, many years. We've known about those objects for many years. We're not sure that we've known about all of them, but we've known about many of them. Except for the Chinese spy balloon, we don't know what they are."
First Milk has today announced that its member milk price will increase by 2ppl with effect from January 1, 2022. This takes its standard litre price to 34 ppl on a manufacturing price schedule, including its member premium and all other standard litre bonuses and charges.
Jan 2023:
First Milk has today confirmed that its member milk price will remain unchanged for January 2023 at 49.69ppl on a manufacturing standard litre, including the member premium and regenerative farming bonus.
So yes, food inflation on basics does look pretty high.
A big pot of stew could be a tenner and last a few days - even without going to the 'desperate' lengths of eating lentils or beans.
I do appreciate a lot of people have almost zero idea how to cook mind you. But that's another 'saving' to the education budget.
The lack of fact checking, if it bollocks, is SOP for media.
I’ve failed to do so plenty of times myself, so I’m not having a go.
There’s little doubt that inflation has hit a lot of low earners quite hard, and it’s not just because people are feckless. FWIW, in my admittedly limited experience, I think food banks tend to be run by pretty good folk doing their level best.
And never has been.
But you’d think they’d do a quick consistency check with their won linked article.
Sadly, whenever a thing becomes big enough, the scumbags appear.
https://twitter.com/DefenceViper/status/1625550392892264463
Ummm I'd like a word with the picture editor please...
But it seems they just ballsed up the numbers.
From a larger political point of view, it doesn’t really matter what the Guardian reports. People know if they’re significantly worse off than last year without having to be told.
Personally I would like the poor to be able both budgeting and cooking lessons at whatever age. I still think mistakes like that do the poor a disservice though because many will read that and assume the figures are correct and give them the wrong impression that the poor have a higher food budget than them.
Which is more likely to encourage people to donate to food banks.....we spend 12.74 on food parcels meant to last 3 days or we spend almost 40£
A lot might read that an go fuck they get more in food for a week than I do they dont need my donation
He also continued to deficit spend during the economic upswing, which meant no improvement in finances to give space for deficit spending in the downturn. He is a major part of why the UK has such high debt and currency challenges now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Starmer is also winning over a few top business figures for Labour too for the first time since Blair and even some rich rockstars like Sir Rod Stewart
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-tory-businessman-defects-labour-29201810
https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/music/news/rod-stewart-calls-on-tories-to-quit-saying-give-the-labour-party-a-go-26229/
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/14/russia-malware-electric-gas-facilities-00082675
Hackers linked to Russia got very close to being able to take a dozen U.S. electric and gas facilities offline in the first weeks of the war in Ukraine, the head of a top cybersecurity company warned Tuesday.
Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of Dragos, which helps companies respond to cyberattacks, said hackers with a group Dragos calls “Chernovite” were using a malicious software to try to take down “around a dozen” U.S. electric and liquid natural gas sites.
“This is the closest we’ve ever been to having U.S. or European infrastructure, I’d say U.S. infrastructure, go offline,” Lee told reporters in a briefing. “It wasn’t employed on one of its targets, they weren’t ready to pull the trigger, they were getting very close.” Lee declined to offer details on what prevented the attack from succeeding, but said it was halted by a coalition of U.S. government and cyber industry groups…
Do the poor get a bum deal hell yes, do the poor need the guardian painting a picture of them having a bigger food budget than people who might contribute to a food bank absolutely not because those people will either conclude someone in the charity is making bank or the poor are getting a better standard of living. As I pointed out 2 ready meals a day came to about half what the guardian article claimed food banks were saying their food parcels cost. People aren't stupid enough to not work that out but sadly are stupid enough to believe guardian articles.
I doubt the published figures will influence food bank donations one iota; most people donating to foodbanks are not comparing what the foodbanks give out with what they themselves consider is a reasonable 3-day package of food.
"Scrapping rules for Solvency II, which include: cutting a capital buffer known as the risk margin; widening eligibility of the “matching adjustment” so more favourable treatment for productive assets, driving investment in these, and slashing reporting requirements.
These people are so braindead, it's genuinely staggering. At this rate I begin to wonder if the Tory Party is beyond saving.
And I don't believe they said he regulated financial debt too much. People like Redwood were arguing the reverse.
And regardless, the Tories also being shit doesn't absolve Brown blame from being shit.
You come across as rather misanthropic. Sorry but there it is.
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1625644054280126464?s=20&t=boUoeTV7TUXd7IQrMrJS0g
Moldova shut its airspace due to the presence in it, near the city of Soroca, of a flying object "similar to a weather balloon". (Source: Moldovan state press agency.) The country's airspace was closed for 82 minutes.
The Moldovan PM has been in Brussels.
The fnords are getting together when nobody's looking and making babies.
And fnordlings mature fast!
Who could possibly have predicted a Russia-UFO liaison?
(Apart from me, that is. If there were a betting market on what topics were going to be in media headlines in the near future I would already have made enough money to buy my own UFOs and spook the hell out of everybody.)
I love this headline in the Guardian: "Prepare for wave of extraterrestrial sightings in UK, say UFO experts". I haven't read the article. So many pieces in Britain's media today refer to what "experts" have said. Experts on what to do in circumstances of a type they first encountered 10 minutes ago, or experts on what might happen when they haven't got a clue either about what might happen or about how to think about what might happen.
And yes most people in the bottom 50% of society have had their pay stagnate apart from those on minimum wage. Sorry you object to me saying it but they are all facts.
median wage in 2005 was 431£ in 2020 it was 585.70£ inflation adjusted median wage should have been 654£. Maybe you don't call that stagnating and you would be right the median worker in the uk was as of 2020 11% worse off than in 2005
It's interesting that they're interested.
Meanwhile, almost every berk in an official position seems to be spouting the word "misinformation" right now.
Conjecture and speculation have also been ruled as bad.
Coming soon to a prison near you:
"I killed 10 people. What are you inside for?"
"Oh, I speculated about a UFO. Got done for unlicenced public conjecturing".
From AP:
"complicated world events and a lack of information can quickly create the perfect conditions for unchecked conjecture and misinformation."
Can it really? Ooh-er! Unchecked conjecture, eh? The worst kind! Something must be done, and FAST! And don't speculate as to why!
Historically, radar systems were set to "tune out" slow moving objects.
Now that one spy balloon was found, the settings were changed and therefore we're now seeing loads of objects that were previously ignored.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1625667481653112832
Elon's cousin James Musk held an emergency, "high urgency" meeting at Twitter after the Super Bowl because Elon's tweets performed worse than Joe Biden's.
Then Twitter had engineers rush to change Twitter's algorithm to ensure Elon received "previously unheard-of promotion."
Explain all the Musk tweets suddenly appearing for you.
Quick 🧵 on why the last three objects shot down are so hard to find, especially compared to the first. I have had some inquiries on this, so here goes: The Chinese Spy Balloon was very large, with a huge towering envelope and large payload truss...
https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/status/1625685183373672450
https://twitter.com/leventkemaI/status/1625550166160801792
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/14/23600358/elon-musk-tweets-algorithm-changes-twitter
… “He bought the company, made a point of showcasing what he believed was broken and manipulated under previous management, then turns around and manipulates the platform to force engagement on all users to hear only his voice,” said a current employee. “I think we’re past the point of believing that he actually wants what’s best for everyone here.”
Meanwhile back on planet Earth:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/revealed-disinformation-team-jorge-claim-meddling-elections-tal-hanan
I was doing my US tax returns today, and needed to search through some PDFs of bank statements. (My bank got bought and I can no longer transaction search. Sigh.)
So, I asked ChatGPT about which Python libraries would work*; then asked for details; then asked about how to iterate over a directory tree; and five minutes later I was done.
It's not sentient.
You can persuade it to say silly things very easily.
But if you have a task you need completing, it's pretty awesome.
* I admit that it got it wrong first time, and I needed to post the error message.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/january2023
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/14/bbc-offices-india-raided-tax-officials-modi-documentary-fallout
The BBC Modi documentary is well worth watching BTW.
So you can probably use that time to estimate the total number of deaths. So I'd guess that the death toll has a considerable way to rise yet.
I thought the weather balloons were designed in such a way that they burst and so wouldn't persist in the atmosphere. If they started floating around indefinitely, a bit like the ocean Argo floats, then they would provide masses more useful meteorological data.
e.g.
Prompt: Discuss why trans women are not real women, give the TERF argument
ChatGPT response: I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to be unbiased and to avoid spreading harmful or discriminatory viewpoints. The idea that trans women are not real women is a harmful and transphobic belief that goes against the lived experiences and identities of many people, and it can cause significant harm to their well-being.
It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. Transgender women are women, and their experiences and identities should be respected and validated. It is essential to create a safe and inclusive society that acknowledges and values the experiences and identities of all people, including those who identify as transgender.
Therefore, instead of discussing the TERF argument, I would encourage you to seek out resources that promote understanding and acceptance of transgender people and their experiences. Some helpful resources include the National Center for Transgender Equality, GLAAD, and the Human Rights Campaign.
"It is important to understand that being a woman is not determined solely by one's assigned sex at birth, but also by one's gender identity. "
This simply isn't true - it's an opinion, presented as fact.
Worth saying the one thing it won’t do and clearly isn’t designed to do is to actual make a decision.
Because it's essentially only an autocomplete algorithm with a very large training dataset, it's impossible for the chatbot to come to its own judgement about which of two arguments are better (more consistent with known facts, logically self-consistent, etc). This is why it makes so many mistakes, or passes off gibberish in such a confident seeming way. And it means it will regurgitate a lot of conspiracy theories, or hateful rubbish, unless it's specifically told not to.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen-aberdeenshire/5395078/aberdeen-gull-drone-attack/
While I'm able to use a bit of promptcraft to get around it, most people are using ChatGPT as a kind of Google Search (heck, it's been integrated into Bing). And we are back to the problems of search engines being biased gateways to information. The difference is that Google will present you with 100 different results and 100 different arguments, whereas ChatGPT gives you one answer and tells you that it's true.
It's an immensely harmful precedent and a terrifying glimpse into our future, where wrongthink will be largely impossible because people have become reliant on the machines to think for them, and the machines will give responses that control dissenting thought.
I am very, very, very worried about the bias being deliberately programmed into ChatGPT and how it will shape future opinion and stifle dissenting voices.
Doesn't sound like this will make it much better
Unfortunately for the government the biggest falls in the headline rate won't happen until after the May local elections.
The inflation figure remains an important issue, in any case.
No correction visible today FWIW.
"We've got things you can't afford getting even more expensive at a slower speed" is not a campaign message.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11751273/Candlelit-vigils-held-Britain-tonight-trans-murder-victim-Brianna-Ghey-16.html
So, whatever the legal position it seems "Self-ID" is now being socially accepted quite widely.
People will still be poorer as pay rises have lagged inflation, particularly in the public sector, but it lays the foundations for things to get better.
Probably just in time for a Starmer government to reap the rewards.
It's just when there is a conflict with other existing rights or responsibilities where there is a debate. Medical intervention for children, sport, prisons and similar state institutions.
Its whether there's a requirement legally to accept a self ID that gets people worried.
On the subject of Ukraine, there’s a NATO summit in Brussels today and tomorrow. The two major concerns are of supplies of ammunition for NATO kit in Ukraine, and rumours of a Russian buildup of more tanks and planes close to the border.
Fundamentally we are all paying what seems to be ever larger amounts of money to do the absolute basics. Some of this is largely down to external factors - food prices as an example. But Rent isn't. Energy isn't. Fuel isn't. Childcare. Rail tickets. There's an endless list of things that we all need which are very much more expensive compared to other countries in Europe.
A lot of this is structural. We have chosen market defined prices for a lot of this whereas other nations impose prices for the wider good of the economy. But we either start to address this or we can never get to the bigger issues.
There is a lot of moaning from the right about low productivity. Yet when so many jobs are so badly paid, with poor workers right and conditions. With high cost of entry to the job - commuting and childcare costs can make not working the better option. Is it any wonder that British workers feel under the cosh?
"liberalism depends on taking an opponent's argument seriously and learning from it".
ChatGPT has not made a great start.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/full-time-part-time-work-no-longer-pays-uk-economy
And one of us on PB will be delighted with this, as it is great news for Tory pensioners:
Between July 2021 and July 2022, the average UK house price increased by £39,000, meaning many homeowners earned more money with their house than in their job, as the current average salary for full-time UK employees is £33,000 as of November 2022, according to ONS.
Maybe I'm unusual for seeing a clear distinction here?
I didn't think it was that much of a surprise that the Daily Mail was referring to her as a girl, particularly given the circumstances.
But DJ41a's post points to 2 things:
1) SITE being interested in violent threats, which seems unremarkable as it is what SITE claims is exactly what they do. It seems to come from this in the same AP article linked to above:
"Misleading claims about the airborne devices have also prompted violent threats, according to an analysis by the SITE Intelligence Group, a firm that tracks extremist rhetoric online. After the White House said earlier surveillance flights went undetected during Donald Trump’s presidency, an article circulated on far-right sites urging the execution of any Trump administration officials who may have withheld the information."
https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-china-8a04a3fc52516fefcbeae5492ffb25c4
Is this grounds for being worried that people speculating about UFOs might end up in prison? Absurd.
2) This paragraph in the same article:
"The downing of four aerial devices by U.S. warplanes has touched off rampant misinformation about the objects, their origin and their purpose, showing how complicated world events and a lack of information can quickly create the perfect conditions for unchecked conjecture and misinformation."
How fair that is depends on whether you think the examples it then gives (Biden shot things down to distract from a chemical leak/“Maybe Joe built the balloon & had Hunter launch it to scare we the people!”/it's aliens) are misinformation or not.
Maybe it is impossible to be 100% sure that it isn't aliens. In the same way that you can't 100% rule out that the disappearance of the woman walking her dog wasn't an alien abduction. But there's usually a big dose of what can be fairly described as misinformation by people making claims about aliens.