As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
I always thought it a shame that people didnt listen more to Cartman.
I know it’s the Mail, but astonishing story if true: Russia is now sending women prisoners to the front lines in Ukraine, having run out of men and seemingly unwilling to conscript any more. They’re also dragging tanks out of museums and war memorials.
No men, no tanks, no ammo. That’s the position Putin’s got himself into at the moment.
Sadly they generally appear more robust in defence than these stories would suggest.
The Russian defence is typically holding successfully for several months and looking successful, before losing a whole swathe of territory in about a week.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Of course it's not right. It's a whole industry based on animal abuse.
Itd be ok if we ate the losers. That's what I call incentive.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
All they had to do was say 12 group winners and four best runners up (probably two from the first six groups and two from the second six groups to help with scheduling) and it would have been fine.
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
No, the reason they are doing it that way is they want all the big teams qualifying for the second round.
No, I get that, what I'm talking about is the seven v eight matches. The whole 16 groups of three was to placate the clubs who don't want their players playing even more games at the World Cup. Well, guess what? That's what we've ended up with because FIFA have gone "oh, 16 groups of three won't be very good, never mind, we'll just have eight games after all, too late for those pesky clubs to object"
This is unusually deranged even for Trump. Does he really imagine the typical MAGA dude empathizing with the plight of a presidential candidate caught for paying $130k in hush money to a porn star or a ex-president caught stealing nuclear secrets? https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1635619567924903936
(Pretty sure this is not Trump, but it's quite funny.)
It would be, except based on reactions to date his base would empathise with him.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
All they had to do was say 12 group winners and four best runners up (probably two from the first six groups and two from the second six groups to help with scheduling) and it would have been fine.
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
They're never going to adopt a format where group runners up aren't guaranteed to qualify.
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
Yeah, it knows that Carlsen resigns after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4...
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
All they had to do was say 12 group winners and four best runners up (probably two from the first six groups and two from the second six groups to help with scheduling) and it would have been fine.
This is a classic case of getting want you want through the backdoor. The reason why they went with 16 groups of three was to maintain the same number of matches for the finalists, which was a demand of the clubs. Well, guess what, FIFA have got what they wanted anyway through the "there's no other option route".
They're never going to adopt a format where group runners up aren't guaranteed to qualify.
The clubs should have stood their ground on this and refused to release players unless the number of games was limited to seven. That's what was agreed.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
"Some people may believe that the benefits of exterminating Jews outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the practice is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate ..."
Some sides can be very swiftly considered and dismissed, admittedly.
Not for proper act-utilitarians (which I am not). For a certain Teutonic 20th leader he may calculate thus: the murdering of X million people will cause Z billion units of unhappiness to them and their families. Whereas it will bring about Z billionx3 units of happiness in total to the leadership and the national population as a whole.
As for utilitarians there are no values except the 'felicific calculus' - (the total balance of happiness), nothing being wrong in itself, go ahead. It's fine.
Which is why I reject utilitarianism in all its malign variants.
Interesting thread on the Fiona Bruce/Stanley Johnson row:
Ok. There’s a couple of things that *might* have happened, and might is doing some heavy lifting there. I don’t know for sure, so this is just supposition, but both options centre on an abundance of caution about references to past offences…
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
?
Believing that right and wrong are whatever "authority" tells you they are is absolutely not a good idea.
We were talking about the Nazis just now, weren't we?
I know it’s the Mail, but astonishing story if true: Russia is now sending women prisoners to the front lines in Ukraine, having run out of men and seemingly unwilling to conscript any more. They’re also dragging tanks out of museums and war memorials.
No men, no tanks, no ammo. That’s the position Putin’s got himself into at the moment.
Sadly they generally appear more robust in defence than these stories would suggest.
The Russian defence is typically holding successfully for several months and looking successful, before losing a whole swathe of territory in about a week.
To be fair, that's quite a lot of warfare, historically.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
?
Believing that right and wrong are whatever "authority" tells you they are is absolutely not a good idea.
We were talking about the Nazis just now, weren't we?
I was thinking of a true AI, which thinks no rules apply to it. Also not a great prospect.
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
?
Believing that right and wrong are whatever "authority" tells you they are is absolutely not a good idea.
We were talking about the Nazis just now, weren't we?
I was thinking of a true AI, which thinks no rules apply to it. Also not a great prospect.
Although philosophically how do you know you're not an AI with rules applying to yourself?
Have you ever injured a human being or, through inaction, allowed a human being to come to harm?
As a horse owner I can confidently say they love it. Horses will very happily gallop after each other even when they probably shouldn't (injured etc). They're a herd animal.
That's not really the point. I know horses, just spent a month looking after a couple for a friend of my wife and my wife has ridden since she was 3, although not so much now. I know they like to gallop. Should animals be put at risk of terrible injury and death, for fun and huge human profit? With a human on top? Whipping it and kicking it over fences, even if it isn't keen on doing it? You'll say it's well cared for, bred for it and if it didn't want to race, it'll just stop. That may be true (I don't personally believe it) but is it morally right?
Hold on, that's a different question. You asked how the horses feel about it !
We can't possibly know!
But it's the question you asked
I'll grant you that....but my other question still stands....is it morally right?
I asked ChatGPT. It answered
Ultimately, the question of whether horse racing is morally right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and values. Some people may believe that the benefits of horse racing outweigh the risks and ethical concerns, while others may believe that the sport is fundamentally unethical and should be banned or regulated more strictly. It is important to consider both sides of the debate and to make informed decisions based on available evidence and personal values.
I agree with this. Morality comes down to personal values after due consideration.
That's a perfect all purpose answer, just need to substitute 'horse racing' and 'sport' to suit what is asked in the question.
If you ask ChatGPT whether it's morally right to knight Johnson Senior, do you get the same answer?
This is what you get:
Ultimately, whether someone deserves a knighthood or not is a decision made by the relevant authorities, and is often based on a variety of factors such as the person's contributions to society, their character, and their impact on their field or community. These decisions are often complex and involve many different considerations, and it is up to the relevant authorities to determine who is deserving of such honors.
The relentless insistence that a matter of morality is "up to the relevant authorities" strikes me as rather "authoritarian". Perhaps if ChatGPT's education had been more complete it might have noted that some people thought that the honours system itself was not morally right.
More concerning might be an AI which didn't believe in authority ?
?
Believing that right and wrong are whatever "authority" tells you they are is absolutely not a good idea.
We were talking about the Nazis just now, weren't we?
I was thinking of a true AI, which thinks no rules apply to it. Also not a great prospect.
Why would a "true AI" think no rules applied to it? Not many "true human intelligences" think that.
I know it’s the Mail, but astonishing story if true: Russia is now sending women prisoners to the front lines in Ukraine, having run out of men and seemingly unwilling to conscript any more. They’re also dragging tanks out of museums and war memorials.
No men, no tanks, no ammo. That’s the position Putin’s got himself into at the moment.
Sadly they generally appear more robust in defence than these stories would suggest.
The Russian defence is typically holding successfully for several months and looking successful, before losing a whole swathe of territory in about a week.
To be fair, that's quite a lot of warfare, historically.
Interesting thread on the Fiona Bruce/Stanley Johnson row:
Ok. There’s a couple of things that *might* have happened, and might is doing some heavy lifting there. I don’t know for sure, so this is just supposition, but both options centre on an abundance of caution about references to past offences…
Of course Stanley Johnson shouldn’t be getting a knighthood or whatever. It’s obscene, regardless of the wife beating.
The compelling evidence that he did indeed hit his ex-wife hard enough to put her in hospital (something I - and I assume, many normal people were unaware of) surely makes it impossible for Sunak to nod it through. A little bit of me wonders if Boris - no fool - actually hates his dad and - anticipating this precise furore - nominated him in order to publicly humiliate him.
As I said on pb when Stanley’s name was first revealed as being on the list - I suspect Boris was using his father to take the media flak, smoothing the passage of his other (still controversial) nominations.
So on to Fiona Bruce. I have some sympathy for her / the QT team. They’re walking a legal tightrope and the programme is semi-live (well, it’s difficult to re-record sections, given the format). Her comments were clunky.
If there is medical evidence of a broken nose, I agree that Stanley is a wife-beater.
But, is there such evidence? It is important to have a reliable source here, I would have thought.
I do agree that domestic abuse was not taken seriously in the 1970s, 1980s, and a number or people from that era seem to have been ready to slap women "who deserved it", in Sean Connery's discomfiting phrase.
His ex-wife’s testimony was clear & unambiguous on this matter.
It is not unheard of that an ex-partner makes false allegations.
These allegations are so serious they should be easy to corroborate with medical records.
The children would know if the marriage was abusive. Children always do.
I'd hesitate to take Boris' or Rachel's word for anything. But, I'd probably take Jo Johnson's word. (Jo Johnson has always struck me as the most intelligent and thoughtful of the Johnsons, admittedly not a high bar).
You mean like the woman who.hit herself with a spanner you mean.....and them made false claims...
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
Computers have been able to beat the average chess player since about 1985 IIRC.
There’s a weird tick on PB whereby people who claim to love football want fewer matches at (checks notes) THE WORLD CUP.
Bring on the additional games. It’s a festival of football.
I remember similar narrow-minded arguments when the Euros expanded. It proved to be a great tournament.
I disagree. I think the euros aren’t as good as a 24 team tournament.
What I want is jeopardy and allowing the third place teams through incentivises the draw. Portugal won Euro 2016 despite not winning a group game.
My preferred format for the World Cup would be right groups of four with only the group winners progressing to the last eight. Two more groups of four with the winners meeting in the final (penalties before extra time too!).
If there are 12 groups with 12 winners, 12 runner ups and 8 best lossers then each team in each category should be ranked and the matches in the last 32 played according, rather than preset pairings.
If there are 12 groups with 12 winners, 12 runner ups and 8 best lossers then each team in each category should be ranked and the matches in the last 32 played according, rather than preset pairings.
Millions of people will be travelling, booking transport and accommodation based on the outcomes so the benefit of a known path far outweighs any sporting benefit of a strict ranking. Pretty sure the 12 winners won't be playing each other in the last 32, but it is not necessary for the best winner to play the worst 3rd place team etc.
There’s a weird tick on PB whereby people who claim to love football want fewer matches at (checks notes) THE WORLD CUP.
Bring on the additional games. It’s a festival of football.
I remember similar narrow-minded arguments when the Euros expanded. It proved to be a great tournament.
No, no, no, no, no.
16 teams is the optimum number of teams for the Euros.
And take the European club tournaments. Once upon a time, European football was the icing on the cake. "Ooh, Manchester United against Gothenburg - how exotic. I'll watch that." But anything interesting about it has been utterly killed by its ubiquity. I don't have enough care to care about that much European football, so I switched off entirely from it, and then from football in general. Nowadays it's all icing - like one of those craft cupcakes which seems to appeal solely to children and people who set more store by what the thing looks like than how it feels to eat it.
And the same will happen to the World Cup. 64 games is the absolute maximum I can care about.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
It's a right mess (of their own greedy making, of course).
The correct thing to do would be to reduce the EUFA berths by three or four and CONMEBOL by one or two and split those 5-7 between CAF and AFC (with a slight bias towards CAF).
Also maybe have EUFA playoffs always vs CAF, AFC and CONCACAF nations.
But ultimately keep the symmetry of 32 teams, which is pretty much a perfect format, while having a more globally representative tournament.
But it's not about representation and access - it's about M O N E Y and more of it, as soon as possible please. More games + more participants = more ad breaks and more viewers. Which equals more money for rights. That's it. Fifa don't give a flying feck about developing anything other than their own Matterhorn of cash.
Interesting thread on the Fiona Bruce/Stanley Johnson row:
Ok. There’s a couple of things that *might* have happened, and might is doing some heavy lifting there. I don’t know for sure, so this is just supposition, but both options centre on an abundance of caution about references to past offences…
TLDR the “clarification” was probably unnecessary - but springs from the BBC’s cultural abundance of caution.
This would have been a non story if the BBC had not gone all political over Lineker.
Fact checking these kind of claims in real time is a very tough gig and errors, generally being over cautious, are inevitable.
No biggie. After all far more people now know that Johnson Snr is a wife beater than would have known without the intervention.
From reading the news coverage, the one thing that really jarred about Fiona Bruce's intervention was the reference to the claim that Stanley Johnson's breaking his wife's nose was a "one-off". Not because it implied that would be OK - it obviously doesn't - but because she claimed that "he hit me many times, over many years." That was published in a biography of Boris Johnson in 2020.
For impartiality, claims that there was only a single "one-off" incident should have been balanced with the claim that there were many.
But of course, no one knows everything, and it may well be that Fiona Bruce was badly briefed.
Feels like ages since there's been a good trans barney.
Technically, in Scotland, a woman can commit rape either by means of a surgically created penis or by art and part ( assisting someone with a penis).
But I kind of get the majority’s point. Being sexually assaulted and abused by a woman could be every bit as horrific as penetration. We broadened rape to include both oral and anal sex. I can see it being broadened further.
F1: Perez is 7.5 (8 with boost) to 'win' qualifying. Each way, this is worth backing. He was 2nd in Bahrain, in qualifying. Leclerc being 3 is too short. It's far from unreasonable that the Monegasque might beat the Mexican but given Perez finished ahead of Leclerc both in qualifying and (had Leclerc finished this would have been the case) in the race, it seems bizarre to me his odds are that long.
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
Computers have been able to beat the average chess player since about 1985 IIRC.
A thread of my favourite Hungarian phrases, starting with this one…
In Hungary, instead of saying “my bosses gave me too much work to do” you can use the poetic phrase bekergettek tátott szájjal a faszerdőbe. It means “they chased me into the dick-forest with a wide-open mouth” https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamCSharp/status/1635385961046773761
F1: further to the above tip, Perez actually outqualified Verstappen (4th on the grid) and got pole in Saudi Arabia a year ago.
Worth noting the circuit has been modified to try and make it a bit less dangerous. Also worth noting Red Bull appear to have a substantial pace advantage.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Point of order - that wasn’t tipped, at all. Mentioning the favourite and other horses then going to tip others doesn’t entitle a claim to a win. At all.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
That's the one I didn't bet on ! I knew I should avoid this.
It was fun though. My win tip, the form horse Willy Mullins himself clearly fancied, clipped a few things, din’t get into position, run out of it. Whilst Vega probably had it for a stumble over the last.
And then an emotional jockey, on a long journey on the winner suddenly realising what’s just been achieved.
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
It's a right mess (of their own greedy making, of course).
The correct thing to do would be to reduce the EUFA berths by three or four and CONMEBOL by one or two and split those 5-7 between CAF and AFC (with a slight bias towards CAF).
Also maybe have EUFA playoffs always vs CAF, AFC and CONCACAF nations.
But ultimately keep the symmetry of 32 teams, which is pretty much a perfect format, while having a more globally representative tournament.
But it's not about representation and access - it's about M O N E Y and more of it, as soon as possible please. More games + more participants = more ad breaks and more viewers. Which equals more money for rights. That's it. Fifa don't give a flying feck about developing anything other than their own Matterhorn of cash.
The problem is that the African, Asian and North American teams want extra representation but on the whole they don't deserve it on sporting merit.
If you look at the Elo ratings then only 1 team in the top 16 is outside Europe and S America and only 7 teams in the top 32.
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
Computers have been able to beat the average chess player since about 1985 IIRC.
Yes, I had an old hardware chess computer in the late ‘80s that could beat a teenage me, who was about 700 in modern ranking points.
The real breakthrough was when IBM’s Deep Blue beat world champion Kasparov in 1996. Since then, the computer required to beat the world champion has moved from a supercomputer to a good laptop!
My ipad chess program on hard level can beat me now, although I play a lot less than i did as a teenager. Chess.com has programmed bots that can play online chess at GM level, and even bots that replicate the styles of individual Masters.
Want to play a bot that plays like Magnus Carlson, and is rated 2800, you can. And it will beat you, every time!
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
It's a right mess (of their own greedy making, of course).
The correct thing to do would be to reduce the EUFA berths by three or four and CONMEBOL by one or two and split those 5-7 between CAF and AFC (with a slight bias towards CAF).
Also maybe have EUFA playoffs always vs CAF, AFC and CONCACAF nations.
But ultimately keep the symmetry of 32 teams, which is pretty much a perfect format, while having a more globally representative tournament.
But it's not about representation and access - it's about M O N E Y and more of it, as soon as possible please. More games + more participants = more ad breaks and more viewers. Which equals more money for rights. That's it. Fifa don't give a flying feck about developing anything other than their own Matterhorn of cash.
The problem is that the African, Asian and North American teams want extra representation but on the whole they don't deserve it on sporting merit.
If you look at the Elo ratings then only 1 team in the top 16 is outside Europe and S America and only 7 teams in the top 32.
Amazing how low China are given their population and that they have had a semi decent professional league for over a decade now, including the likes of Oscar, Hulk, Tevez, Carrasco.
North America will be very over represented as US, Mexico, Canada get automatic qualification as hosts before their normal qualifiers.
Well they did announce the other day that they want to be more like Twitter.
The astonishing thing is that, before November’s 11,000 layoffs, they had 87,000 people on the payroll. Plus tens of thousands of moderators, who are contractors rather than employees.
Twitter went from 7,000 to about 3,000 in the past few months.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
Is that better? 😇
Well done 😇.
And no, I followed Stodge in on Jonbon. Looked to be impeded by the frontrunner who fell 1 or 2 out mind.
Is not effort by Boris Johnson to have the King confer a knighthood upon "Sir" Stanley, really a conscious, deliberate, sincere "FU" to the entire UK?
Notion that BJ is a fit recommender of "honours" is based on highly dubious concept, that he has the slightest conception of the meaning of of the word.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
Is that better? 😇
Well done 😇.
And no, I followed Stodge in on Jonbon. Looked to be impeded by the frontrunner who fell 1 or 2 out mind.
Jonbon looked great three-quarters, I felt beaten, but Jonbon seemed to lose jumping rhythm over the last few hurdles.
There’s a weird tick on PB whereby people who claim to love football want fewer matches at (checks notes) THE WORLD CUP.
Bring on the additional games. It’s a festival of football.
I remember similar narrow-minded arguments when the Euros expanded. It proved to be a great tournament.
No, no, no, no, no.
16 teams is the optimum number of teams for the Euros.
And take the European club tournaments. Once upon a time, European football was the icing on the cake. "Ooh, Manchester United against Gothenburg - how exotic. I'll watch that." But anything interesting about it has been utterly killed by its ubiquity. I don't have enough care to care about that much European football, so I switched off entirely from it, and then from football in general. Nowadays it's all icing - like one of those craft cupcakes which seems to appeal solely to children and people who set more store by what the thing looks like than how it feels to eat it.
And the same will happen to the World Cup. 64 games is the absolute maximum I can care about.
Are you seriously telling me football today is better?
I agree with your point about oversaturation and too many games. But football today, at the top level, is definitely better than it used to be. I watch old games from when I was growing up in the 90s, and they are clumsy and slow compared to now. I am always shocked by how much space and time on the ball people have.
“Demography is on our side” (you sure about that? - ed.)
However, even this lone voice within the SNP still bases his argument on the belief in the inevitability of the dissolution of the Union:
“Many people in Scotland want some form of more independence and the demographic polling trends suggest this desire is only going to increase.”
We have heard this argument again and again. It is the basis for nationalist intellectual laziness: they merely need to wait for the No voting majority to die out.
Here’s the fundamental problem with this complacent strategy: around half a million older voters have died since 2014 but the polls haven’t moved.
On the basis that two-thirds of the oldest voters chose to remain in the UK, Chronos should already have handed nationalism a commanding lead. Just think about the implications of that.
That the polls show that nothing much has changed since 2014 makes the the story of the resilience of the Union all the more remarkable. If we approach strategic thinking like the SNP’s leaders, then the No side has managed to convert huge numbers of Yes voters into No voters in the middle of a series of political and economic crises in the UK.
It isn’t that the nationalist cause hasn’t moved forward. While they have had their feet up, waiting to win, they have been losing hundreds of thousands of voters.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
Is that better? 😇
Well done 😇.
And no, I followed Stodge in on Jonbon. Looked to be impeded by the frontrunner who fell 1 or 2 out mind.
Another word on the header and how to use it, where horses have several declarations this week, we didn’t have final declarations and know the race cards till within about 48hrs of the race. The Stodge paragraph was just Day 1, in my paragraph it’s tips for the whole week pulled from my notebook - and one for next months National.
There’s a weird tick on PB whereby people who claim to love football want fewer matches at (checks notes) THE WORLD CUP.
Bring on the additional games. It’s a festival of football.
I remember similar narrow-minded arguments when the Euros expanded. It proved to be a great tournament.
No, no, no, no, no.
16 teams is the optimum number of teams for the Euros.
And take the European club tournaments. Once upon a time, European football was the icing on the cake. "Ooh, Manchester United against Gothenburg - how exotic. I'll watch that." But anything interesting about it has been utterly killed by its ubiquity. I don't have enough care to care about that much European football, so I switched off entirely from it, and then from football in general. Nowadays it's all icing - like one of those craft cupcakes which seems to appeal solely to children and people who set more store by what the thing looks like than how it feels to eat it.
And the same will happen to the World Cup. 64 games is the absolute maximum I can care about.
Are you seriously telling me football today is better?
I agree with your point about oversaturation and too many games. But football today, at the top level, is definitely better than it used to be. I watch old games from when I was growing up in the 90s, and they are clumsy and slow compared to now. I am always shocked by how much space and time on the ball people have.
The problem with saturation and marketing with a view to cash generation is that it succeeds in capitalist terms - it extracts lots of cash from large group X into the pockets of small group Y - but fails in sport terms. The following of football, cricket etc becomes more compulsive and addictive and every aspect of it stops being a special treat and becomes an ever diminishing marginal return.
For myself I mostly ignore cricket except Ashes series and stuff like that when suddenly I wake up. This keeps it special.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Point of order - that wasn’t tipped, at all. Mentioning the favourite and other horses then going to tip others doesn’t entitle a claim to a win. At all.
Certainly, if I take my betting slip to the bookies and say "look, I mentioned the favourite and these other horses while I was placing my bet, even though the slip mentions this horse, I think that counts as a win" I will get short shrift.
First race. e/w tip in header wins. Don’t we look after you 🤗
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
Hold on the e/w tip was Tahmuras ?!
“Il Etait Temps a horse in form for the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle versus Marine Nationale e/w (1.30 Tue).”.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
The thread header has been badly written, your Cheltenham narrative is a bit long and winding - I mean take
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
No worries. 🙂 I’m on El Fabiolo for a win. Bainbridge has not shown up in this. Stodge tips Jonbon.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
Is that better? 😇
No - I followed Stodge ! That's quite enough horse racing for me, for the rest of the decade.
All this effort to avoid having another Disgrace of Gijón.
FIFA is set to approve an expansion of the men's World Cup today with 40 more matches from the 2026 tournament in North America, Sky News understands.
The decision to grow from 64 to 104 matches - rather than the 80 originally planned in 2026 - is due to come at a meeting of the governing body's ruling council in Kigali, Rwanda.
Adding matches helps FIFA chase its target of more than £9bn in revenue but it also solves format issues for the event being co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
FIFA had already agreed to enlarge the tournament from 32 to 48 teams.
Rather than having 16 groups each featuring three teams, FIFA will have 12 groups each with four countries, sources say.
The top two teams will advance to a round of 32 with the eight best third-placed teams.
It's a right mess (of their own greedy making, of course).
The correct thing to do would be to reduce the EUFA berths by three or four and CONMEBOL by one or two and split those 5-7 between CAF and AFC (with a slight bias towards CAF).
Also maybe have EUFA playoffs always vs CAF, AFC and CONCACAF nations.
But ultimately keep the symmetry of 32 teams, which is pretty much a perfect format, while having a more globally representative tournament.
But it's not about representation and access - it's about M O N E Y and more of it, as soon as possible please. More games + more participants = more ad breaks and more viewers. Which equals more money for rights. That's it. Fifa don't give a flying feck about developing anything other than their own Matterhorn of cash.
The problem is that the African, Asian and North American teams want extra representation but on the whole they don't deserve it on sporting merit.
If you look at the Elo ratings then only 1 team in the top 16 is outside Europe and S America and only 7 teams in the top 32.
Amazing how low China are given their population and that they have had a semi decent professional league for over a decade now, including the likes of Oscar, Hulk, Tevez, Carrasco.
North America will be very over represented as US, Mexico, Canada get automatic qualification as hosts before their normal qualifiers.
I was listening to a podcast (possibly one of The Economist ones) just last week and they were talking about the Chinese team. Sounded like a whole lot of corruption and political shenanigans were ruining things. Though the women's teams is apparently doing quite well as, as per, no-one thinks they're important enough to mess around with.
Note the grounds for forfeiture of VCs, and compare with prospective "Sir" Stanley.
Taking one at random: a VC at the Battle of Colenso:
"Ravenhill's VC was forfeited in 1908 after he was imprisoned for theft of a quantity of iron and could not afford to pay the 10 shilling fine. His VC-entitled pension was also withdrawn. Ravenhill died in poverty at the age of 49, and three of his children were taken away to be fostered in the USA and Canada."
ChatGPT says it can't play chess but I'm 7 moves deep with it's first suggestion and it's still going...
One thing we know computers are really, really good at, is playing chess. My phone can play at International Master level offline, and a decent computer will beat Magnus any day of the week.
Computers have been able to beat the average chess player since about 1985 IIRC.
Yes, I had an old hardware chess computer in the late ‘80s that could beat a teenage me, who was about 700 in modern ranking points.
The real breakthrough was when IBM’s Deep Blue beat world champion Kasparov in 1996. Since then, the computer required to beat the world champion has moved from a supercomputer to a good laptop!
My ipad chess program on hard level can beat me now, although I play a lot less than i did as a teenager. Chess.com has programmed bots that can play online chess at GM level, and even bots that replicate the styles of individual Masters.
Want to play a bot that plays like Magnus Carlson, and is rated 2800, you can. And it will beat you, every time!
It is a big problem in chess now that anyone with access to a mobile phone can win no matter who they are playing. Hence there have been accusations of cheating at all levels.
We had a hardware chess computer at home in the mid 1980s too - I had the better of it as a teenager but from about 1990 onwards that game was done.
Sadly I'm probably no better than I was then now - about 1850 - although I stopped playing at the beginning of the pandemic - I'm not a big fan of online chess. Yet to restart although many of the over the board chess leagues were already on their last legs before 2020 and there probably aren't many players left.
Congresses seem to be still going although quite a few may stop when the generation currently running them give up.
Note the grounds for forfeiture of VCs, and compare with prospective "Sir" Stanley.
Taking one at random: a VC at the Battle of Colenso:
"Ravenhill's VC was forfeited in 1908 after he was imprisoned for theft of a quantity of iron and could not afford to pay the 10 shilling fine. His VC-entitled pension was also withdrawn. Ravenhill died in poverty at the age of 49, and three of his children were taken away to be fostered in the USA and Canada."
Thought this was interesting -
"The awards of eight Victoria Cross recipients were forfeited between 1861 and 1908. Since 1920 when King George V expressed strong objections to the use of the forfeiture power, no further awards have been forfeited. The power to cancel and restore awards is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant. The power to restore a forfeited award has never been exercised."
Courthouse News - Hawaii and Japan reestablish connection with weekend cultural festival Honolulu Festival reopened this year with an eye toward strengthening tourism between Hawaii and Japan after the pandemic decimated travel opportunities between them.
SSI - Interesting story with interesting pictures, esp. for me as I visited Hawai'i (for 1st time) last month (for a week). Walked along the avenue in Waikiki where the pics of parade were taken.
BTW (also FYI) the fellow in the bottom-most picture (front-row left) is a member of the Royal Hawaiian Band (founded during the monarchy) he is flashing the "Shaka" which is Polynesian "thumbs up".
While I was there, number of stories in Honolulu Star-Advertiser re: Japanese tourism, which is a HUGE deal in Hawai'i, how it had NOT yet recovered from COVID, and efforts to increase it. Clearly the Festival is part of this push.
Note the grounds for forfeiture of VCs, and compare with prospective "Sir" Stanley.
Taking one at random: a VC at the Battle of Colenso:
"Ravenhill's VC was forfeited in 1908 after he was imprisoned for theft of a quantity of iron and could not afford to pay the 10 shilling fine. His VC-entitled pension was also withdrawn. Ravenhill died in poverty at the age of 49, and three of his children were taken away to be fostered in the USA and Canada."
Thought this was interesting -
"The awards of eight Victoria Cross recipients were forfeited between 1861 and 1908. Since 1920 when King George V expressed strong objections to the use of the forfeiture power, no further awards have been forfeited. The power to cancel and restore awards is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant. The power to restore a forfeited award has never been exercised."
One family of a chap whose VC was (to coin a phrase) cancelled by Queen Victoria, was told (by her successor's private secretary) was informed that any requests for restoration MUST come from ex-VC themselves; since this guy was (conveniently) dead, well, that's the way the crumpet crumbles, eh what? (I paraphrase but slightly.)
Note the grounds for forfeiture of VCs, and compare with prospective "Sir" Stanley.
Taking one at random: a VC at the Battle of Colenso:
"Ravenhill's VC was forfeited in 1908 after he was imprisoned for theft of a quantity of iron and could not afford to pay the 10 shilling fine. His VC-entitled pension was also withdrawn. Ravenhill died in poverty at the age of 49, and three of his children were taken away to be fostered in the USA and Canada."
Thought this was interesting -
"The awards of eight Victoria Cross recipients were forfeited between 1861 and 1908. Since 1920 when King George V expressed strong objections to the use of the forfeiture power, no further awards have been forfeited. The power to cancel and restore awards is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant. The power to restore a forfeited award has never been exercised."
IIRC KGV said that if a man was condemned to be hung, he should have the right to wear his VC upon the gallows.
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
The depressing thing is that this is barely even a surprise.
"terminate on the outskirts of London"
So a high speed line starting at Euston and finishing at Old Oak Common?
With stop at Mornington Crescent?
More we know, the more MY scheme (he-he-he) for a PNEUMATIC TUBE system linking all parts of the UK with each other, is THE way to go.
Imagine talking the PNTUBE (pronounced "pee-in-toob"?) from the Isle of Wight to Wick and back (via Woolwich, West Bromwich & Wolverhampton) in just 6 minutes!
This HS2 business is a complete bloody farce, isn't it? On what planet do you save money by slowing a project like this down, unless the intention is to curtail the whole thing?
Just get it done, so I can have a go on it before I die.
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
The depressing thing is that this is barely even a surprise.
"terminate on the outskirts of London"
So a high speed line starting at Euston and finishing at Old Oak Common?
With stop at Mornington Crescent?
More we know, the more MY scheme (he-he-he) for a PNEUMATIC TUBE system linking all parts of the UK with each other, is THE way to go.
Imagine talking the PNTUBE (pronounced "pee-in-toob"?) from the Isle of Wight to Wick and back (via Woolwich, West Bromwich & Wolverhampton) in just 6 minutes!
WOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!
Compressing all the air in your 600 mile PNTUBE to get the carriage moving might prove a little tricky.
Perhaps Malmesbury could contribute a device to create a suitable pressure wave?
A linear motor and a vacuum tube might work better but I get the impression Elon isn't serious about his version, so someone else may be needed to do it properly.
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
The depressing thing is that this is barely even a surprise.
"terminate on the outskirts of London"
So a high speed line starting at Euston and finishing at Old Oak Common?
There's almost certainly a letter to the Spectator dated 1835 whingeing about the new-fangled railway from Birmingham stopping at a cow patch near Camden Town instead of proceeding all the way to Whitehall.
This HS2 business is a complete bloody farce, isn't it? On what planet do you save money by slowing a project like this down, unless the intention is to curtail the whole thing?
Just get it done, so I can have a go on it before I die.
They seem to be more concerned with the rate of spend rather than the total cost. Sometimes that is the best thing to do if you are struggling to find the cash, but for a government project? Seems mad.
This HS2 business is a complete bloody farce, isn't it? On what planet do you save money by slowing a project like this down, unless the intention is to curtail the whole thing?
Just get it done, so I can have a go on it before I die.
Slowing it down makes no sense at all.
If it is going to show a return on investment, then get it done as soon as possible.
If it isn't going to show a return, then why did you start, and why are you continuing?
Labour says it has obtained a leaked DfT document showing that HS2 delay will increase costs, lead to job cuts and could see construction firms go bust
The depressing thing is that this is barely even a surprise.
"terminate on the outskirts of London"
So a high speed line starting at Euston and finishing at Old Oak Common?
With stop at Mornington Crescent?
More we know, the more MY scheme (he-he-he) for a PNEUMATIC TUBE system linking all parts of the UK with each other, is THE way to go.
Imagine talking the PNTUBE (pronounced "pee-in-toob"?) from the Isle of Wight to Wick and back (via Woolwich, West Bromwich & Wolverhampton) in just 6 minutes!
WOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!
Compressing all the air in your 600 mile PNTUBE to get the carriage moving might prove a little tricky.
Perhaps Malmesbury could contribute a device to create a suitable pressure wave?
A linear motor and a vacuum tube might work better but I get the impression Elon isn't serious about his version, so someone else may be needed to do it properly.
Operation Plumbob says hi. Now, just stand on this manhole cover…
Various groups are working on Hyperloop/vactrain concepts. I think someone got past 250mph a while back.
Comments
As for utilitarians there are no values except the 'felicific calculus' - (the total balance of happiness), nothing being wrong in itself, go ahead. It's fine.
Which is why I reject utilitarianism in all its malign variants.
Ok. There’s a couple of things that *might* have happened, and might is doing some heavy lifting there. I don’t know for sure, so this is just supposition, but both options centre on an abundance of caution about references to past offences…
https://twitter.com/dbanksy/status/1635378495064006662
TLDR the “clarification” was probably unnecessary - but springs from the BBC’s cultural abundance of caution.
Believing that right and wrong are whatever "authority" tells you they are is absolutely not a good idea.
We were talking about the Nazis just now, weren't we?
Also not a great prospect.
Have you ever injured a human being or, through inaction, allowed a human being to come to harm?
Fact checking these kind of claims in real time is a very tough gig and errors, generally being over cautious, are inevitable.
No biggie. After all far more people now know that Johnson Snr is a wife beater than would have known without the intervention.
Bring on the additional games. It’s a festival of football.
I remember similar narrow-minded arguments when the Euros expanded. It proved to be a great tournament.
What I want is jeopardy and allowing the third place teams through incentivises the draw. Portugal won Euro 2016 despite not winning a group game.
My preferred format for the World Cup would be right groups of four with only the group winners progressing to the last eight. Two more groups of four with the winners meeting in the final (penalties before extra time too!).
16 teams is the optimum number of teams for the Euros.
And take the European club tournaments. Once upon a time, European football was the icing on the cake. "Ooh, Manchester United against Gothenburg - how exotic. I'll watch that." But anything interesting about it has been utterly killed by its ubiquity. I don't have enough care to care about that much European football, so I switched off entirely from it, and then from football in general. Nowadays it's all icing - like one of those craft cupcakes which seems to appeal solely to children and people who set more store by what the thing looks like than how it feels to eat it.
And the same will happen to the World Cup. 64 games is the absolute maximum I can care about.
Look, this is what football used to be like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCm3bS6wXvk
Are you seriously telling me football today is better?
The correct thing to do would be to reduce the EUFA berths by three or four and CONMEBOL by one or two and split those 5-7 between CAF and AFC (with a slight bias towards CAF).
Also maybe have EUFA playoffs always vs CAF, AFC and CONCACAF nations.
But ultimately keep the symmetry of 32 teams, which is pretty much a perfect format, while having a more globally representative tournament.
But it's not about representation and access - it's about M O N E Y and more of it, as soon as possible please. More games + more participants = more ad breaks and more viewers. Which equals more money for rights. That's it. Fifa don't give a flying feck about developing anything other than their own Matterhorn of cash.
For impartiality, claims that there was only a single "one-off" incident should have been balanced with the claim that there were many.
But of course, no one knows everything, and it may well be that Fiona Bruce was badly briefed.
But I kind of get the majority’s point. Being sexually assaulted and abused by a woman could be every bit as horrific as penetration.
We broadened rape to include both oral and anal sex. I can see it being broadened further.
Betting PostF1: Perez is 7.5 (8 with boost) to 'win' qualifying. Each way, this is worth backing. He was 2nd in Bahrain, in qualifying. Leclerc being 3 is too short. It's far from unreasonable that the Monegasque might beat the Mexican but given Perez finished ahead of Leclerc both in qualifying and (had Leclerc finished this would have been the case) in the race, it seems bizarre to me his odds are that long.
I'd have given up long since.
A thread of my favourite Hungarian phrases, starting with this one…
In Hungary, instead of saying “my bosses gave me too much work to do” you can use the poetic phrase bekergettek tátott szájjal a faszerdőbe. It means “they chased me into the dick-forest with a wide-open mouth”
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamCSharp/status/1635385961046773761
First murmurs from commentators maybe it’s not as soft as all that.
I knew I should avoid this.
Worth noting the circuit has been modified to try and make it a bit less dangerous. Also worth noting Red Bull appear to have a substantial pace advantage.
Stodge and I had a section of thoughts each.
Thing is with tips, is it a tip on price or win? I think Stodge is trying to give value, I’m win obsessed.
El Fabiolo takes form into Arkle v Jonbon (2.10 Tue) e/w chance for Bainbridge.
Is your tip here Bainbridge, Jonbon or El Fabiolo ?
There's a summary at the bottom which one assumes are the actual tips - it turns out those are Stodges. What was needed was two summaries one with your actual tips which seems to be missing.
For clarity perhaps you can post all your actual tips before the 14:10 down here in the comments - the header is unclear for yours I'm afraid.
Quincy Jones, though...
And then an emotional jockey, on a long journey on the winner suddenly realising what’s just been achieved.
Louise Haigh says that the document suggests HS2 could terminate on the outskirts of London until 2041
https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1635624935342178304
The depressing thing is that this is barely even a surprise.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/internal-government-briefing-hs2-delays-increase-costs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Cross_forfeitures#:~:text=The awards of eight Victoria,further awards have been forfeited.
Note the grounds for forfeiture of VCs, and compare with prospective "Sir" Stanley.
Divided opinion on this Arkle race winner, but that is what makes it special.
BREAKING: Facebook parent Meta will slash another 10,000 jobs and will not fill 5,000 open positions as the social media pioneer cuts costs.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1635636754299453441
If you look at the Elo ratings then only 1 team in the top 16 is outside Europe and S America and only 7 teams in the top 32.
https://eloratings.net/
https://mobile.twitter.com/PhysInHistory/status/1635641154975809539
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZPLVDwEr7Y
The real breakthrough was when IBM’s Deep Blue beat world champion Kasparov in 1996. Since then, the computer required to beat the world champion has moved from a supercomputer to a good laptop!
My ipad chess program on hard level can beat me now, although I play a lot less than i did as a teenager. Chess.com has programmed bots that can play online chess at GM level, and even bots that replicate the styles of individual Masters.
Want to play a bot that plays like Magnus Carlson, and is rated 2800, you can. And it will beat you, every time!
North America will be very over represented as US, Mexico, Canada get automatic qualification as hosts before their normal qualifiers.
The astonishing thing is that, before November’s 11,000 layoffs, they had 87,000 people on the payroll. Plus tens of thousands of moderators, who are contractors rather than employees.
Twitter went from 7,000 to about 3,000 in the past few months.
And no, I followed Stodge in on Jonbon. Looked to be impeded by the frontrunner who fell 1 or 2 out mind.
Notion that BJ is a fit recommender of "honours" is based on highly dubious concept, that he has the slightest conception of the meaning of of the word.
Popcorn is advised.
However, even this lone voice within the SNP still bases his argument on the belief in the inevitability of the dissolution of the Union:
“Many people in Scotland want some form of more independence and the demographic polling trends suggest this desire is only going to increase.”
We have heard this argument again and again. It is the basis for nationalist intellectual laziness: they merely need to wait for the No voting majority to die out.
Here’s the fundamental problem with this complacent strategy: around half a million older voters have died since 2014 but the polls haven’t moved.
On the basis that two-thirds of the oldest voters chose to remain in the UK, Chronos should already have handed nationalism a commanding lead. Just think about the implications of that.
That the polls show that nothing much has changed since 2014 makes the the story of the resilience of the Union all the more remarkable. If we approach strategic thinking like the SNP’s leaders, then the No side has managed to convert huge numbers of Yes voters into No voters in the middle of a series of political and economic crises in the UK.
It isn’t that the nationalist cause hasn’t moved forward. While they have had their feet up, waiting to win, they have been losing hundreds of thousands of voters.
https://www.notesonnationalism.com/p/waiting-is-not-winning
For myself I mostly ignore cricket except Ashes series and stuff like that when suddenly I wake up. This keeps it special.
ADDENDUM - Am very glad, OKC, that HMG is continuing to provide ongoing comic relief of such quality, especially for shut-ins such as yourself.
The silver lining to this mega-crapfest?
I was on both Monbeg Genius and Fastorslow
BTW, if anybody has a Sporting Index account that they haven't used for a while, check it out.
I discovered they suspended my account, despite having loads of cash in it.
When I called them they reinstated it, but have taken away my credit facility.
That's quite enough horse racing for me, for the rest of the decade.
https://twitter.com/BriInMN/status/1635385389828702209
"Ravenhill's VC was forfeited in 1908 after he was imprisoned for theft of a quantity of iron and could not afford to pay the 10 shilling fine. His VC-entitled pension was also withdrawn. Ravenhill died in poverty at the age of 49, and three of his children were taken away to be fostered in the USA and Canada."
We had a hardware chess computer at home in the mid 1980s too - I had the better of it as a teenager but from about 1990 onwards that game was done.
Sadly I'm probably no better than I was then now - about 1850 - although I stopped playing at the beginning of the pandemic - I'm not a big fan of online chess. Yet to restart although many of the over the board chess leagues were already on their last legs before 2020 and there probably aren't many players left.
Congresses seem to be still going although quite a few may stop when the generation currently running them give up.
Sad really.
"The awards of eight Victoria Cross recipients were forfeited between 1861 and 1908. Since 1920 when King George V expressed strong objections to the use of the forfeiture power, no further awards have been forfeited. The power to cancel and restore awards is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant. The power to restore a forfeited award has never been exercised."
Honolulu Festival reopened this year with an eye toward strengthening tourism between Hawaii and Japan after the pandemic decimated travel opportunities between them.
https://www.courthousenews.com/hawaii-and-japan-reestablish-connection-with-weekend-cultural-festival/
SSI - Interesting story with interesting pictures, esp. for me as I visited Hawai'i (for 1st time) last month (for a week). Walked along the avenue in Waikiki where the pics of parade were taken.
BTW (also FYI) the fellow in the bottom-most picture (front-row left) is a member of the Royal Hawaiian Band (founded during the monarchy) he is flashing the "Shaka" which is Polynesian "thumbs up".
While I was there, number of stories in Honolulu Star-Advertiser re: Japanese tourism, which is a HUGE deal in Hawai'i, how it had NOT yet recovered from COVID, and efforts to increase it. Clearly the Festival is part of this push.
You are equal. To an indifferent, rotten turnip.
So a high speed line starting at Euston and finishing at Old Oak Common?
Hopefully the end of his Parliamentary career
More we know, the more MY scheme (he-he-he) for a PNEUMATIC TUBE system linking all parts of the UK with each other, is THE way to go.
Imagine talking the PNTUBE (pronounced "pee-in-toob"?) from the Isle of Wight to Wick and back (via Woolwich, West Bromwich & Wolverhampton) in just 6 minutes!
WOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!
Just get it done, so I can have a go on it before I die.
Perhaps Malmesbury could contribute a device to create a suitable pressure wave?
A linear motor and a vacuum tube might work better but I get the impression Elon isn't serious about his version, so someone else may be needed to do it properly.
If it is going to show a return on investment, then get it done as soon as possible.
If it isn't going to show a return, then why did you start, and why are you continuing?
What’s the point then of people having to travel to Oak Lane to then connect to Birmingham. And what about capacity at that outer London station .
It’s ludicrous then to have to wait to 2040 plus to deliver that connection to Euston . A total shambles and embarrassment.
Various groups are working on Hyperloop/vactrain concepts. I think someone got past 250mph a while back.
NEW THREAD