. . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . in race for Dumbest SCOTUS Justice, Samuel Alito edging out Clarence Thomas . . .
Politico.com - Samuel Alito and the Donald Trump School of Self-Immolation The justice’s defense against charges of unethical behavior only proved how clueless he is about public relations.
When would he ever have had to worry about public relations? Roberts might have some lingering worry about that sort off thing, but most of the rest?
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
That said I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to drink a 2005 left bank classed growth even with the higher than usual merlot. I tried a cru bourgeois a year or so ago and it was quite far from ready.
Interesting, thanks. So the Issan 2022 EP is £50 a bottle (+VAT, duty and delivery).
I'm at an age where anything that's not going to be at it's best for 20 years might be too long to wait.
I have been wary of the '22s for precisely that reason - amazing as they appear to be, I am not going to buy a wine that is at its peak in 20-30yrs time because I certainly won't be.
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
On the first question (drink now or later) I would go through your wines in the approx order from first to last:
- any white burgundy (will already be past it) - new world merlot or Pinot noir - Supertuscans (assuming mainly Cabernet based) - new world rhone blends or Shiraz - Southern rhone eg gigondas, cdp - Red burgundy or Barolo unless a v top domaine - Red Bordeaux - Northern Rhône eg cote rôtie or hermitage - Rhine or Mosel spatlese type rieslings, Sauternes - Madeira and port
As for what to buy now that’s a tricky question. Burgundy is having a mad bubble. Bordeaux too boring. New world a bit out of sorts. For value:
- very top of the range South African - the best cru beaujolais - All top German wines - massively undervalued - English sparkling grandes marques like Nyetimber tillington blanc de blancs, Exton Park RB45 and so on. They’re already going up.
I assume on the basis he doesn't want to vocalise Trump winning, but we all know he will. How many tore in Trump 2016 who, naturally, loyally backed him, and are now passionate Trumpites?
The interesting part is the section on how Trump is indeed better than DeSantis on something. Trump himself acknowledged that he has a problem with GOP voters during his Fox News interview this week, where he talked about how he has not spoken much publicly about his efforts to get Covid-19 vaccines approved so quickly.
“I really don’t want to talk about it because, as a Republican, it’s not a great thing to talk about, because for some reason it’s just not,” Trump said.
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . in race for Dumbest SCOTUS Justice, Samuel Alito edging out Clarence Thomas . . .
Politico.com - Samuel Alito and the Donald Trump School of Self-Immolation The justice’s defense against charges of unethical behavior only proved how clueless he is about public relations.
When would he ever have had to worry about public relations? Roberts might have some lingering worry about that sort off thing, but most of the rest?
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
You do have a point.
However, besides the personal non-liability of Alito (and Thomas) is public (in)credibility and (dis)repute of SCOTUS as an institution.
A huge hole to which Alito has made a MASSIVE contribution . . . and he's still digging deeper . . .
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
Any theories on why it would happen
Carbon fibre for pressure vessels has a troubled history.
Submarine pressure hulls (metal) are often limited to x number of compression/decompression cycles.
Even if the carbon fibre starts out perfect, the repeated compression cycle will eventually cause failure. The layers of carbon fibre will start to delaminate.
The safety engineer who got fired, stated that the quality of the layup of the carbon fibre was far from perfect. He also said that the quality was untested, directly. And that the system to monitor failure in the carbon fibre wouldn’t work, since it would only give an indication when it was already too late.
In addition the end cap and window for the vessel weren’t rated for 4000m.
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
The 2022 clarets. Supposed to be as good as 1947. Which was good. Extremely good.
Or call Harry Palmer there for the best deals (it was such a good year everyone has jacked up their prices) and he will sort you out.
If you're quick, the Wine Society's Château Mouton Rothschild 2022 en primeur offer will close at midday tomorrow, Friday 23rd June 2023.
Mind you at £1,554 per case of 3 in-bond, it might not be quite what you had in mind.
All EP wines are sold at exactly the same price by every merchant so there's no "offer". That said if you do want the Mouton you'd better get your skates on as it will likely sell out from everywhere. That's why I use Farr's; they always get good allocations.
But I don't want to buy wine which costs £100+ a bottle from the outset. I want a wine which will pleasingly quintuple in value in a decade or two. I accept I am asking for an extremely good deal
IIRC I bought the Chateau d'Issan from Tesco! Back when they used to have a weirdly good, on point Fine Wine department. Sadly gone
Absolutely and absolutely. We have discussed previously how good the Tescos wine dept was before they closed it.
And I'm not suggesting Mouton - if you are serious, then call Harry at Farr's and he will sort you out with something at your price point. The Batailley is supposed to be amazing this year for example at £372/cs (doz) IB.
Thankyou. I will absolutely look into this. If I'm gonna drink all my lovely wines now I want to know I've got something else quietly improving in a darkened corner
I've got about half a dozen Aussie reds worth £150+. I suspect they are close to peaking as well, or indeed past it
I used to have a £300+ bottle of scotch given me by my employers as a reward for good behaviour, but my then wife age 22 drank it all in about 2 evenings while I was away coz she was "bored" and she thought it was "just average whisky". She did say it was "unexpectedly nice"
I have a horrible feeling she mixed it with Diet Coke
Brits are even more critical of the government on Sunak's 5 key pledges
% saying government doing badly at...
Reducing inflation: 82% (+6 from 26 May) Economic growth: 69% (+5) National debt: 71% (+5) NHS waiting lists: 84% (+1) Small boats: 76% (+1)
Those are terrifying numbers for the government. How many natural conservatives among those would sit on hands or switch? It's greater than zero, that's for sure.
That said I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to drink a 2005 left bank classed growth even with the higher than usual merlot. I tried a cru bourgeois a year or so ago and it was quite far from ready.
Interesting, thanks. So the Issan 2022 EP is £50 a bottle (+VAT, duty and delivery).
I'm at an age where anything that's not going to be at it's best for 20 years might be too long to wait.
I have been wary of the '22s for precisely that reason - amazing as they appear to be, I am not going to buy a wine that is at its peak in 20-30yrs time because I certainly won't be.
Auberon Waugh said something wise about this. Something like "there comes a sobering moment in a drinker's life when you realise there is no point in buying really fine wine to age any more. You will be dead or gaga when it peaks"
i guess you could buy for your/our children but none of them drink
UGH final op is Jones . Thomas writes (6-3) that even if an intervening federal case shows *you were convicted of something that isn't a crime* OR *were sentenced to more time than the law allows* you CANNOT file a federal habeas petition. https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1671885660540788739
With all other checks and balances it's just so weird to me appointments were made lifetime for the Court, (even if it's role was not as uber-powerful as now), when judicial whim of a handful of people can have absolutely massive effects. I guess most would not have served as long as they do now, but still.
When the Constitution was written and ratified, the Founders did NOT include judicial review of constitutionality or otherwise by SCOTUS. Which didn't become a Thing until the Court's famous Marbury v Madison decison.
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . in race for Dumbest SCOTUS Justice, Samuel Alito edging out Clarence Thomas . . .
Politico.com - Samuel Alito and the Donald Trump School of Self-Immolation The justice’s defense against charges of unethical behavior only proved how clueless he is about public relations.
When would he ever have had to worry about public relations? Roberts might have some lingering worry about that sort off thing, but most of the rest?
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
You do have a point.
However, besides the personal non-liability of Alito (and Thomas) is public (in)credibility and (dis)repute of SCOTUS as an institution.
A huge hole to which Alito has made a MASSIVE contribution . . . and he's still digging deeper . . .
They seem to regard themselves as akin to biblical prophets, bestowing the wisdom of heaven and with their personal foibles not a matter for mere mortals to question.
And no doubt Trump isn't saying he'll support DeSantis - or any other GOP nominee besides himself - in 2024.
Indeed. Even the ones who've shown more leg about not backng Trump I'd not be 100% on - if the documents case be kicked into the long grass until the nomination, they have an out that he has not actually been convicted so whilst they couldn't back him if he was, he hasn't yet so 'reluctantly' can.
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
On the first question (drink now or later) I would go through your wines in the approx order from first to last:
- any white burgundy (will already be past it) - new world merlot or Pinot noir - Supertuscans (assuming mainly Cabernet based) - new world rhone blends or Shiraz - Southern rhone eg gigondas, cdp - Red burgundy or Barolo unless a v top domaine - Red Bordeaux - Northern Rhône eg cote rôtie or hermitage - Rhine or Mosel spatlese type rieslings, Sauternes - Madeira and port
As for what to buy now that’s a tricky question. Burgundy is having a mad bubble. Bordeaux too boring. New world a bit out of sorts. For value:
- very top of the range South African - the best cru beaujolais - All top German wines - massively undervalued - English sparkling grandes marques like Nyetimber tillington blanc de blancs, Exton Park RB45 and so on. They’re already going up.
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
Any theories on why it would happen
Carbon fibre for pressure vessels has a troubled history.
Submarine pressure hulls (metal) are often limited to x number of compression/decompression cycles.
Even if the carbon fibre starts out perfect, the repeated compression cycle will eventually cause failure. The layers of carbon fibre will start to delaminate.
The safety engineer who got fired, stated that the quality of the layup of the carbon fibre was far from perfect. He also said that the quality was untested, directly. And that the system to monitor failure in the carbon fibre wouldn’t work, since it would only give an indication when it was already too late.
In addition the end cap and window for the vessel weren’t rated for 4000m.
So all in all, it probably wasn't a great idea to dive to the Titanic in it?
How crazy that transphobic people lie, and that the story that looked like someone compared trans identities to identifying as an animal (like they used to compare consenting same sex relationships to beastiality) ends up being that and not that someone actually identifies as a cat (despite what the national press think):
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
On the first question (drink now or later) I would go through your wines in the approx order from first to last:
- any white burgundy (will already be past it) - new world merlot or Pinot noir - Supertuscans (assuming mainly Cabernet based) - new world rhone blends or Shiraz - Southern rhone eg gigondas, cdp - Red burgundy or Barolo unless a v top domaine - Red Bordeaux - Northern Rhône eg cote rôtie or hermitage - Rhine or Mosel spatlese type rieslings, Sauternes - Madeira and port
As for what to buy now that’s a tricky question. Burgundy is having a mad bubble. Bordeaux too boring. New world a bit out of sorts. For value:
- very top of the range South African - the best cru beaujolais - All top German wines - massively undervalued - English sparkling grandes marques like Nyetimber tillington blanc de blancs, Exton Park RB45 and so on. They’re already going up.
Agree re German wines. And while I love Nyetimber, I think that ship has already sailed; it is no longer cheap compared to similar Champagne, and looks downright expensive against US sparkling wine.
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
How embarrassing to have mixed those up! I thought I was being so careful too...
UGH final op is Jones . Thomas writes (6-3) that even if an intervening federal case shows *you were convicted of something that isn't a crime* OR *were sentenced to more time than the law allows* you CANNOT file a federal habeas petition. https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1671885660540788739
With all other checks and balances it's just so weird to me appointments were made lifetime for the Court, (even if it's role was not as uber-powerful as now), when judicial whim of a handful of people can have absolutely massive effects. I guess most would not have served as long as they do now, but still.
When the Constitution was written and ratified, the Founders did NOT include judicial review of constitutionality or otherwise by SCOTUS. Which didn't become a Thing until the Court's famous Marbury v Madison decison.
Lifetime federal judicial appointments were modeled on . . . wait for it . . . English practice & precedents.
It's why I said it was not as powerful as now, since I was aware they kind of invented their own power. But given the durability and formal checks in the US, far more than here, and the mythologising of the foundation, it doesn't seem to be beyond the earlier decades in realising the dangers that are now very appparent - young, uber partisan appointees who, even if not 100 of the time, will vigorously pursue their personal political objecitves, through what might as well be organised action with friendly states.
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . in race for Dumbest SCOTUS Justice, Samuel Alito edging out Clarence Thomas . . .
Politico.com - Samuel Alito and the Donald Trump School of Self-Immolation The justice’s defense against charges of unethical behavior only proved how clueless he is about public relations.
When would he ever have had to worry about public relations? Roberts might have some lingering worry about that sort off thing, but most of the rest?
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
You do have a point.
However, besides the personal non-liability of Alito (and Thomas) is public (in)credibility and (dis)repute of SCOTUS as an institution.
A huge hole to which Alito has made a MASSIVE contribution . . . and he's still digging deeper . . .
They seem to regard themselves as akin to biblical prophets, bestowing the wisdom of heaven and with their personal foibles not a matter for mere mortals to question.
And no doubt Trump isn't saying he'll support DeSantis - or any other GOP nominee besides himself - in 2024.
Indeed. Even the ones who've shown more leg about not backng Trump I'd not be 100% on - if the documents case be kicked into the long grass until the nomination, they have an out that he has not actually been convicted so whilst they couldn't back him if he was, he hasn't yet so 'reluctantly' can.
Maybe Kamikaze Christie wouldn't.
Actual issue at play here, beside considerations you raise, is that pledging to support the party nominee is one of the conditions for participating in official Republican presidential debates.
We will see just how conditional THAT condition may prove to be, depending upon . . . conditions!
So the Tories still lead Labour by 2% in rural areas with Yougov then even despite trailing Labour by 16% overall in the latest Yougov UK wide poll.
Labour may be closer there but they won't win rural areas just as they failed to in 1997 and 2001 despite big wins nationally and just as the Conservatives failed to win inner city areas overall even in 1983, 1987 or 2019, their biggest wins in the last 50 years. The chart showing the Tories winning urban areas in 2019 I suspect includes the suburbs not just inner cities
If Labour win Rural seats the Tory party will be below 100 seats at the next election.
Hear there were some serious truth bombs at the 1922 Committee in address by @FrankLuntz to Tory MPs.
Said anyone with a 15k or less majority is "at this moment in time" under threat of losing their seat - added: "this is what CCHQ are not telling you."
Not sure why CCHQ need to tell them - they must know from their constituents
It is very easy to miss what you do not want to hear.
Ideally for the party CCHQ would drop truth bombs, but also have a plan to inspire recovery.
So far the only plan appears to be 'out Nimby the LDs'.
Trying to “Out-NIMBY the LDs” is like the proverbial wrestling with a pig. You both get covered in mud, but the pig is going to enjoy the experience.
If the Tories want to accept that they have one year left in government, they should use their remaining time and clear majority to have a bloody good go at the “too-difficult pile”, the problems that need fixing but are politically difficult. It’s not 1996, where the majority had evaporated.
Agree.
They are all at it though. I had occasion to look at a local news piece featuring IDS where he's campaigning against an incinerator being placed in his constituency. In an energy crisis. Prick.
It depends what the incinerator is going to be burning and what anyone downwind is going to get.
Sometimes they are just an excuse not to recycle, although the energy balance for that is complicated.
I don't think it is entirely nimbyism in that there's a legitimate argument not to have any incineration at all, whereas we do actually need housing.
I don't agree on any count I'm afraid. We should be incinerating all of our incinerable waste instead of it going into landfill and releasing its carbon anyway. We should probably be incinerating quite a lot of 'recyclable' stuff too, as often that doesn't get recycled at all.
I am ready for a fight. I genuinely hate the people who have been so protected whilst we get fucked.
Put our lives on hold. Fucked.
We should have all refused to lock down, it was a complete waste of time for us. The people protected will be dead soon, we've got years of this shit to come.
I am so, so angry. I have no confidence Labour will sort it out - but the priority is getting Little Rishi and his bunch of fucktards out.
Labour rarely sorts anything out.
But joking aside, the younger generation do have legitimate complaint, though in my experience it is a little simplistic to make demographic divisions. There are plenty of entitled oldies and entitled youngers. There are plenty of whinging oldies and whinging youngsters. There are also those that work bloody hard, don't blame others and become a success in life however that looks, because they seize the day and look for the bright spots rather than the dark.
There are plenty of reasons why we (particularly those in UK) should all be very grateful for the times we live in, despite Brexit, incoming Labour governments, Putin etc. Let us be grateful we were not born in Mariupol.
You make a good point but I was addressing the overwhelming feeling we get from the media and so on who amplify it. I recall the week we spent discussing avocado on toast.
I am not saying all elderly people are bad - but a large minority give the rest a bad name. And for them I am afraid I regret putting my life on hold.
It wasn't just older people that were killed by Covid. Yes they were disproportionately effected. The lockdowns were not designed to save the elderly, they were designed to save our healthcare system. Funnily enough, the one system in Europe that is closest to our mad NHS system had no lockdown at all (Sweden). It will be interesting to reflect on which government got it right.
Lockdown was pretty shit. But if you want to focus on the bright side by contrasting with the darkest, imagine what it must be like for those people in Ukraine at the moment, or even the parents of Russian soldiers. They really have had a lot to complain about.
Around 1,000 people in the UK died from Covid on its own, the rest died "with Covid".
Utter rubbish, and you must realise that.
Ordinarily I'd say yes, but Andy I think is always utterly sincere.
That it's a claim so extreme I've not even seen loony antivaxers make it, only adds to the sense it must be a real view, not following a trendy claim.
Back to Horse's point. I largely agree with him, though perhaps not so vehemently. But Rishi was one of the less pro-lockdown MPs, certainly in comparison to SKS, who never missedan opportunity to call for more lockdown. Indeed, in my list of (happily far less long than in 2019) reasons to vote against Labour, this comes top.
Relatively inexpensive 2022 clarets which should develop superbly for 20 years (prices per dozen in bond):
Capbern £230 Tronquoy £236 Meyney £282 Lagrange (Pomerol) £285 Tour St Christophe £351 Batailley £372 Gloria £377 Lafon Rochet £420
Unfortunately actuarial considerations mean I haven't personally gone in for the 2022s to any great extent, apart from some lesser ones like La Chenade which should mature relatively quickly. I have however bought Batailley and La Gaffeliere, both of which should be absolutely superb, as a hedge against unexpected longevity.
That said I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to drink a 2005 left bank classed growth even with the higher than usual merlot. I tried a cru bourgeois a year or so ago and it was quite far from ready.
Interesting, thanks. So the Issan 2022 EP is £50 a bottle (+VAT, duty and delivery).
I'm at an age where anything that's not going to be at it's best for 20 years might be too long to wait.
I have been wary of the '22s for precisely that reason - amazing as they appear to be, I am not going to buy a wine that is at its peak in 20-30yrs time because I certainly won't be.
Auberon Waugh said something wise about this. Something like "there comes a sobering moment in a drinker's life when you realise there is no point in buying really fine wine to age any more. You will be dead or gaga when it peaks"
i guess you could buy for your/our children but none of them drink
Although I am not as eclectic as you in my wine buying I do take great pleasure in finding small parcels of unfashionable years or wines. The 2004 or 2007 clarets for example a case in point you can get some cracking drinking from some very smart houses at very reasonable prices and yes, you and he are right, I am looking at but not touching all those fabulous wines around now. I believe the Batailley is "Drink 2030-47"
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
Any theories on why it would happen
Carbon fibre for pressure vessels has a troubled history.
Submarine pressure hulls (metal) are often limited to x number of compression/decompression cycles.
Even if the carbon fibre starts out perfect, the repeated compression cycle will eventually cause failure. The layers of carbon fibre will start to delaminate.
The safety engineer who got fired, stated that the quality of the layup of the carbon fibre was far from perfect. He also said that the quality was untested, directly. And that the system to monitor failure in the carbon fibre wouldn’t work, since it would only give an indication when it was already too late.
In addition the end cap and window for the vessel weren’t rated for 4000m.
So all in all, it probably wasn't a great idea to dive to the Titanic in it?
Just reflecting that 3500 m is about 350 bar pressure - ie 350 atmospheres. 5000lb psi, just about. The *peak* pressure in a diesel cylinder is about two-thirds of that for a turbocharged diesel.
Two more Spanish polls today both giving a likely majority simple for PP, requiring Vox acquiescence to rule. With 2 weeks before the 3 week campaign starts the polling so far is very stable.
Relatively inexpensive 2022 clarets which should develop superbly for 20 years (prices per dozen in bond):
Capbern £230 Tronquoy £236 Meyney £282 Lagrange (Pomerol) £285 Tour St Christophe £351 Batailley £372 Gloria £377 Lafon Rochet £420
Unfortunately actuarial considerations mean I haven't personally gone in for the 2022s, apart from some lesser ones like La Chenade which should mature relatively quickly. I have however bought Batailley and La Gaffeliere, both of which should be absolutely superb, as a hedge against unexpected longevity.
Yes the Batailley is standing out - perhaps PB can clear Farr's out completely.
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
On the first question (drink now or later) I would go through your wines in the approx order from first to last:
- any white burgundy (will already be past it) - new world merlot or Pinot noir - Supertuscans (assuming mainly Cabernet based) - new world rhone blends or Shiraz - Southern rhone eg gigondas, cdp - Red burgundy or Barolo unless a v top domaine - Red Bordeaux - Northern Rhône eg cote rôtie or hermitage - Rhine or Mosel spatlese type rieslings, Sauternes - Madeira and port
As for what to buy now that’s a tricky question. Burgundy is having a mad bubble. Bordeaux too boring. New world a bit out of sorts. For value:
- very top of the range South African - the best cru beaujolais - All top German wines - massively undervalued - English sparkling grandes marques like Nyetimber tillington blanc de blancs, Exton Park RB45 and so on. They’re already going up.
Agree re German wines. And while I love Nyetimber, I think that ship has already sailed; it is no longer cheap compared to similar Champagne, and looks downright expensive against US sparkling wine.
It was never cheap vs good champagne marques. Only recently they've started to discount it a bit to bring it down to around £30 a bottle.
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
Any theories on why it would happen
Lots. Repeated thermal cycling of the carbon fibre pressure vessel could have induced cracks; the viewing port was never intended for use at that depth, etc.
The fact that it had successfully dived several times didn't mean it was safe.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
I'm just back from a cycling holiday and we only had one bad pass the whole time out of hundreds. We were on a Sustrans route and we even had drivers stopping and asking us how we were getting on, telling us about good pubs etc.
That one pass nearly killed us though, so it does stick in the mind.
There's quite an amusing and slightly blunt Irish camera cyclist called RighttoBikeIt who has his rear facing camera showing his "equipment" and his quadriceps, which probably does make people jealous.
At present there is little alternative much of the time other than to cycle on the roads, as there are few safe mobility (used to be called cycle-) tracks, and the entire public footpath, bridleway and cycleway network is littered with tens of thousands (literally) of illegal (under Equality Act 2010) anti-access barriers pandering to the myth that they keep 'motobikes' out, which ban disabled and many elderly people from much of the countryside.
This is one just built project (just finished by Plymouth Council) which excludes people in wheelchairs and elderly people in mobility scooters from a "strategic walking and cycling route", which is illegal. They considered a ramp, but wanted to save money.
I've seen that on Twitter, and I'd like to see a little more detail on where it is, and what sort of path it is. It *may* be a reasonable compromise; it may not.
Leaving the steps aside, what sort of speed should cyclists be going down that path, if it is shared? 5 MPH max?
The Council considered a ramp, and rejected in favour of a staircase for cost reasons. It's partly an artefact of short term Govt funding packages.
But it is still in violation of the Equality Act 2010, which speaks of their priorities being wrong. With that staircase, it should not have been approved by the Govt funding body.
It is identified as an important cycling route, so discriminating against all sorts of users (parents with kids in a trailer or a tagalong, disabled cyclists on trikes, people on mobility scooters) is completely unacceptable. The first person who is discriminated against under EA 2010 can sue them as provided for in the act, receive compensation, and obtain an injunction making them change it.
It is in Plymstock.
Appropriate speed depends on conditions, how busy it is, and sightlines - amongst other things.
If it has peds, then 10mph and 4-5 mph when close. If empty or long gaps between peds with clear visibility, a higher speed would be fine.
Thanks for that. I'd point out a couple of immediate issues (from #3 plan):
*) There is a road right at the bottom of those steps. Having people bombing down straight into a road is not necessarily a good idea. *) The site *appears* to be quite limited for space, with gardens and houses on either side. Is there space for a reasonable ramp, given the required fall?
The road entrance could be regulated by eg a curve, or even a traditional railing along the kerb edge, which would not obstruct flow.
The Council already have an alternative scheme involving a ramp, so I have to think it meets safety standards and would fit in the space. Their plan is "do that later when more money is available", which for me is a Red Flag that 1 - it will never get done and 2 - they didn't think it through properly at the start.
One golden rule is that you *always* go for quality first over quantity - if not decades of experience teaches that you get a bit more quantity of crap infra that is not fit for purpose.
Relatively inexpensive 2022 clarets which should develop superbly for 20 years (prices per dozen in bond):
Capbern £230 Tronquoy £236 Meyney £282 Lagrange (Pomerol) £285 Tour St Christophe £351 Batailley £372 Gloria £377 Lafon Rochet £420
Unfortunately actuarial considerations mean I haven't personally gone in for the 2022s to any great extent, apart from some lesser ones like La Chenade which should mature relatively quickly. I have however bought Batailley and La Gaffeliere, both of which should be absolutely superb, as a hedge against unexpected longevity.
Sadly, you don't just need longevity. You need to be able to appreciate something more challenging than apple sauce given you on a baby's spoon
I've been trying to get my head around the strength of the physical forces that would have acted on the sub, water coming in fast enough to cut you in half, or just simply 'explode', which it obviously can't do because of the pressure involved on the sub makes an explosion impossible.
I'm guessing the force of the decompression just ripped the whole thing to pieces?
Compression not decompression, implosion not explosion. It will crumple inwards, like an empty plastic bottle you suck the air out of.
Any theories on why it would happen
Carbon fibre for pressure vessels has a troubled history.
Submarine pressure hulls (metal) are often limited to x number of compression/decompression cycles.
Even if the carbon fibre starts out perfect, the repeated compression cycle will eventually cause failure. The layers of carbon fibre will start to delaminate.
The safety engineer who got fired, stated that the quality of the layup of the carbon fibre was far from perfect. He also said that the quality was untested, directly. And that the system to monitor failure in the carbon fibre wouldn’t work, since it would only give an indication when it was already too late.
In addition the end cap and window for the vessel weren’t rated for 4000m.
So all in all, it probably wasn't a great idea to dive to the Titanic in it?
Just reflecting that 3500 m is about 350 bar pressure - ie 350 atmospheres. 5000lb psi, just about. The *peak* pressure in a diesel cylinder is about two-thirds of that for a turbocharged diesel.
Over a *very* small area. Google 'hoop pressures'; though in some ways inverted.
Basically: for a given internal/external pressure, the greater the inside diameter to contain the pressure; the greater the wall thickness required to withstand that pressure.
In addition: AIUI the submarine is made from carbon fibre. This is *very* brittle, and failures often do not make themselves known until the point of catastrophic failure. There is very little creep / plastic deformation,
. . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . in race for Dumbest SCOTUS Justice, Samuel Alito edging out Clarence Thomas . . .
Politico.com - Samuel Alito and the Donald Trump School of Self-Immolation The justice’s defense against charges of unethical behavior only proved how clueless he is about public relations.
When would he ever have had to worry about public relations? Roberts might have some lingering worry about that sort off thing, but most of the rest?
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
Except the power of the court is not absolute. If the current set of Justices continue to bring it into even greater disrepute, at some point - though of course that's subject to electoral considerations - Congress will do something about it. Public relations is very similar to electoral considerations, should they decline sufficiently.
Impeachment might require a supermajority, but other approaches - increasing the size of the court, for example - wouldn't.
I am ready for a fight. I genuinely hate the people who have been so protected whilst we get fucked.
Put our lives on hold. Fucked.
We should have all refused to lock down, it was a complete waste of time for us. The people protected will be dead soon, we've got years of this shit to come.
I am so, so angry. I have no confidence Labour will sort it out - but the priority is getting Little Rishi and his bunch of fucktards out.
Labour rarely sorts anything out.
But joking aside, the younger generation do have legitimate complaint, though in my experience it is a little simplistic to make demographic divisions. There are plenty of entitled oldies and entitled youngers. There are plenty of whinging oldies and whinging youngsters. There are also those that work bloody hard, don't blame others and become a success in life however that looks, because they seize the day and look for the bright spots rather than the dark.
There are plenty of reasons why we (particularly those in UK) should all be very grateful for the times we live in, despite Brexit, incoming Labour governments, Putin etc. Let us be grateful we were not born in Mariupol.
You make a good point but I was addressing the overwhelming feeling we get from the media and so on who amplify it. I recall the week we spent discussing avocado on toast.
I am not saying all elderly people are bad - but a large minority give the rest a bad name. And for them I am afraid I regret putting my life on hold.
It wasn't just older people that were killed by Covid. Yes they were disproportionately effected. The lockdowns were not designed to save the elderly, they were designed to save our healthcare system. Funnily enough, the one system in Europe that is closest to our mad NHS system had no lockdown at all (Sweden). It will be interesting to reflect on which government got it right.
Lockdown was pretty shit. But if you want to focus on the bright side by contrasting with the darkest, imagine what it must be like for those people in Ukraine at the moment, or even the parents of Russian soldiers. They really have had a lot to complain about.
Around 1,000 people in the UK died from Covid on its own, the rest died "with Covid".
By that metric, though, AIDS kills barely anyone.
If the questions are, were the restrictions in place too long, were they (mostly) too strict, were we too slow to react to new information from abroad, and was there insufficient risk segmentation?
Then the answers are probably, yes,yes,yes,yes.
But that doesn't mean that Covid wasn't a major killer.
Most people who die in a British hospital pick up all sorts whilst there. Gastroenteritis, C-diff and dying of thirst aren't widely seen on death certificates.
Although the "cyclists need insurance" brigade do have a point. Liability insurance for cyclists is quite sensible.
Adult cyclists who cycle on pavements, which is unlawful, with a "get out of my way, pedestrian scum" attitude, being too wimpy and scared to ride on the roads, need bans slapped on them by magistrates. (It would only take a few Cambridge fellows to feel the long arm of the law for the others to feel "encouraged".)
Guidance from the Police Chief's Association accepts that adults cycling on pavements is OK, when the road is too dangerous, and it is done considerately - as in the vast majority of cases. Guidance was issued in 1999 by the Home Secretary when it became an "offence", and reaffirmed in 2014. The recent case of the manslaughter of the elderly cyclist demonstrates the need, until such time as we have safe facilities everywhere:
The "cyclists need insurance" brigade have no point whatsoever, except in their own sawdust-filled heads.
Lability insurance for people riding bikes usually comes for free with a home contents policy. Some of us have extra insurance via memberships or specialist policies. I have that because I know many motorist vehicle drivers will lie to the police and then lie to the court, and I will need ferocious lawyers should the worst happen, potentially for a civil claim.
These insurance companies include liability insurance in their Home Contents policies:
Apologies for introducing evidence to the debate.
Normally placid people go absolutely bonkers when it comes to cyclists. It's utterly barmy and baffling.
It's jealously. Motorists see my calf muscles go momentarily insane.
I had a shout-off with some driver in a huge fuck off (but white) Jeep Cherokee this morning. I just think many drivers resent the freedom of movement of cyclists. They don't like cyclists filtering either which I think is part of this.
Unless its a London thing, I think cyclists overestimate how much drivers dislike them. Some drivers are just douchebags, some cyclists are just douchebags, and I'm more likely to get into an argument with another driver than a cyclist.
This morning I had a shout-off (or exchange of banged horns) after I indicated to show I was pulling into the right hand lane, the driver behind in the right hand-lane saw my indicator and took that as a dare to close the gap instead of letting me in, and I pulled in safely anyway. Day before I shouted at another road user to use their indicator after they went around a roundabout in a dangerous manner without using their indicator.
Before that I hadn't been annoyed with any other road use in months and its an extremely long time since a cyclist has pissed me off (red light as almost always).
Sometimes people just don't like other road users for how they're acting. Whether that be people who ride through red lights, or people who don't use their indicator or those who take the indicator as a challenge, its not about cyclist or driver per se.
It's a numbers game, really. As a cyclist you spend a lot of time being overtaken by cars for obvious reasons. So 99 go past perfectly normally and 1 idiot comes too close or shouts at you just for being there, and that's the one you remember. It's easy to feel like everyone hates you because that's just how memory works.
This applies to lots of other situations too, of course. The memorability of extreme examples the main engine of all polarisation.
I'm just back from a cycling holiday and we only had one bad pass the whole time out of hundreds. We were on a Sustrans route and we even had drivers stopping and asking us how we were getting on, telling us about good pubs etc.
That one pass nearly killed us though, so it does stick in the mind.
There's quite an amusing and slightly blunt Irish camera cyclist called RighttoBikeIt who has his rear facing camera showing his "equipment" and his quadriceps, which probably does make people jealous.
At present there is little alternative much of the time other than to cycle on the roads, as there are few safe mobility (used to be called cycle-) tracks, and the entire public footpath, bridleway and cycleway network is littered with tens of thousands (literally) of illegal (under Equality Act 2010) anti-access barriers pandering to the myth that they keep 'motobikes' out, which ban disabled and many elderly people from much of the countryside.
This is one just built project (just finished by Plymouth Council) which excludes people in wheelchairs and elderly people in mobility scooters from a "strategic walking and cycling route", which is illegal. They considered a ramp, but wanted to save money.
I've seen that on Twitter, and I'd like to see a little more detail on where it is, and what sort of path it is. It *may* be a reasonable compromise; it may not.
Leaving the steps aside, what sort of speed should cyclists be going down that path, if it is shared? 5 MPH max?
The Council considered a ramp, and rejected in favour of a staircase for cost reasons. It's partly an artefact of short term Govt funding packages.
But it is still in violation of the Equality Act 2010, which speaks of their priorities being wrong. With that staircase, it should not have been approved by the Govt funding body.
It is identified as an important cycling route, so discriminating against all sorts of users (parents with kids in a trailer or a tagalong, disabled cyclists on trikes, people on mobility scooters) is completely unacceptable. The first person who is discriminated against under EA 2010 can sue them as provided for in the act, receive compensation, and obtain an injunction making them change it.
It is in Plymstock.
Appropriate speed depends on conditions, how busy it is, and sightlines - amongst other things.
If it has peds, then 10mph and 4-5 mph when close. If empty or long gaps between peds with clear visibility, a higher speed would be fine.
Thanks for that. I'd point out a couple of immediate issues (from #3 plan):
*) There is a road right at the bottom of those steps. Having people bombing down straight into a road is not necessarily a good idea. *) The site *appears* to be quite limited for space, with gardens and houses on either side. Is there space for a reasonable ramp, given the required fall?
The road entrance could be regulated by eg a curve, or even a traditional railing along the kerb edge, which would not obstruct flow.
The Council already have an alternative scheme involving a ramp, so I have to think it meets safety standards and would fit in the space. Their plan is "do that later when more money is available", which for me is a Red Flag that 1 - it will never get done and 2 - they didn't think it through properly at the start.
One golden rule is that you *always* go for quality first over quantity - if not decades of experience teaches that you get a bit more quantity of crap infra that is not fit for purpose.
If we always go for 'quality' over 'quantity', we would never get anything. Because we can always got for better 'quality'.
As an example, say that a ramp option requires some land purchase from one of the neighbouring properties (I don't know if that's the case, but from the 2D diagram that's plausible). That puts the cost and time of a CPO or purchase onto the project costs.
And given the way cyclists often go, a 90-degree steep slope ending at a road is a recipe for accidents. But so are steps...
I get weirdly tired about 3 hours after I wake up. Does anyone else? Doesn’t matter when. If I wake at 7 I have a bout of yawning at 10am. If I wake at 9 I am yawning at noon. For about ten minutes
Same if I wake unexpectedly in the night. Say at 2am. I will reliably fall asleep again at 5am. I don’t try to push it, I accept it
Does anyone else have a similar biorhythm?
(This is my attempt to interrupt and divert the tedious bickering)
Ever checked your blood sugar at those times? Might be a low blood sugar effect.
No because it doesn’t really bother me. The tiredness only lasts about 10 minutes. I yawn a fair bit, have a coffee, then I’m fine
In fact it’s quite handy. If I properly wake in the night I know it’s pointless to try and fight my way back to sleep. I just read for 3 hours (or whatever). Then zzz
Just some rhythm in my metabolism, I guess
I'd suggest a diabetes check.
Nah, I’ve been like this for 30 years it doesn’t concern me. And I can be quite hypochondriac
Get checked anyway. You're the right age and weight for type 2 and your diet is shit.
I thought he was skinny, when did he pack the weight on
Frog build. Skinny arms and legs but with a tummy. It's the visceral fat in your torso that messes you up, not the subcutaneous fat.
1. My diet is not shit. It is notably healthy. Red meat about once a week. Tons of fish and greens
2. Not frog type. Rugby playing type. Stocky, quite thick legs, barrel chested. Was a hooker at school
3. I do drink RIDIC amounts of booze, which isn't good at all
4. But I also exercise a lot, rarely get ill, and my Dad died at 8 and my Mum is still going at 86 (just about)
MEH
He must have been some lad to have had a son and died at 8…😀
So far today we have had DavidL at the bar at 8 and now Leon's dad had him when he was 8, interesting day.
I just discovered that a few bottles of wine - say two dozen - that I bought many years ago for £20 or so, are now worth £100-£300 each
That’s deeply pleasing. However Vivino says these wines are now peaking or indeed past their peak. So I need to drink them all quite quickly or they will slowly turn to vinegar
So I will have the pleasure of drinking these fine wines but then, after that, I won’t have the pleasure of knowing I have got some wines worth £100-£300 sitting in the dark in my flat. And the latter pleasure is no small thing
Where are they from - what region, appellation, year etc.?
A variety. Some grand crus. Some pricey Australians. Some supertuscans etc
Here’s one. Worth about £100 apparently. Five times what I paid (ages ago)
Advice seems to be:drink now if you haven’t already
2005 = fantastic year for Bordeaux. That'll be ideal now. Very nice.
PS if I want to buy some wines now around £20-£30 that could be worth 3-5 times that in 10-15 years what should I buy?
The 2022 clarets. Supposed to be as good as 1947. Which was good. Extremely good.
Or call Harry Palmer there for the best deals (it was such a good year everyone has jacked up their prices) and he will sort you out.
If you're quick, the Wine Society's Château Mouton Rothschild 2022 en primeur offer will close at midday tomorrow, Friday 23rd June 2023.
Mind you at £1,554 per case of 3 in-bond, it might not be quite what you had in mind.
All EP wines are sold at exactly the same price by every merchant so there's no "offer". That said if you do want the Mouton you'd better get your skates on as it will likely sell out from everywhere. That's why I use Farr's; they always get good allocations.
But I don't want to buy wine which costs £100+ a bottle from the outset. I want a wine which will pleasingly quintuple in value in a decade or two. I accept I am asking for an extremely good deal
IIRC I bought the Chateau d'Issan from Tesco! Back when they used to have a weirdly good, on point Fine Wine department. Sadly gone
Absolutely and absolutely. We have discussed previously how good the Tescos wine dept was before they closed it.
And I'm not suggesting Mouton - if you are serious, then call Harry at Farr's and he will sort you out with something at your price point. The Batailley is supposed to be amazing this year for example at £372/cs (doz) IB.
Thankyou. I will absolutely look into this. If I'm gonna drink all my lovely wines now I want to know I've got something else quietly improving in a darkened corner
I've got about half a dozen Aussie reds worth £150+. I suspect they are close to peaking as well, or indeed past it
I used to have a £300+ bottle of scotch given me by my employers as a reward for good behaviour, but my then wife age 22 drank it all in about 2 evenings while I was away coz she was "bored" and she thought it was "just average whisky". She did say it was "unexpectedly nice"
I have a horrible feeling she mixed it with Diet Coke
Given what we suspect about the Knappers' Gazette, I hate to think what "good behaviour" looks like.
Comments
Isn't latest position being taken that it is insupportable for anyone to interfere with the Court, they must police their own behaviour, but if they don't then f*ck you?
- any white burgundy (will already be past it)
- new world merlot or Pinot noir
- Supertuscans (assuming mainly Cabernet based)
- new world rhone blends or Shiraz
- Southern rhone eg gigondas, cdp
- Red burgundy or Barolo unless a v top domaine
- Red Bordeaux
- Northern Rhône eg cote rôtie or hermitage
- Rhine or Mosel spatlese type rieslings, Sauternes
- Madeira and port
As for what to buy now that’s a tricky question. Burgundy is having a mad bubble. Bordeaux too boring. New world a bit out of sorts. For value:
- very top of the range South African
- the best cru beaujolais
- All top German wines - massively undervalued
- English sparkling grandes marques like Nyetimber tillington blanc de blancs, Exton Park RB45 and so on. They’re already going up.
I assume on the basis he doesn't want to vocalise Trump winning, but we all know he will. How many tore in Trump 2016 who, naturally, loyally backed him, and are now passionate Trumpites?
The interesting part is the section on how Trump is indeed better than DeSantis on something.
Trump himself acknowledged that he has a problem with GOP voters during his Fox News interview this week, where he talked about how he has not spoken much publicly about his efforts to get Covid-19 vaccines approved so quickly.
“I really don’t want to talk about it because, as a Republican, it’s not a great thing to talk about, because for some reason it’s just not,” Trump said.
However, besides the personal non-liability of Alito (and Thomas) is public (in)credibility and (dis)repute of SCOTUS as an institution.
A huge hole to which Alito has made a MASSIVE contribution . . . and he's still digging deeper . . .
Submarine pressure hulls (metal) are often limited to x number of compression/decompression cycles.
Even if the carbon fibre starts out perfect, the repeated compression cycle will eventually cause failure. The layers of carbon fibre will start to delaminate.
The safety engineer who got fired, stated that the quality of the layup of the carbon fibre was far from perfect. He also said that the quality was untested, directly. And that the system to monitor failure in the carbon fibre wouldn’t work, since it would only give an indication when it was already too late.
In addition the end cap and window for the vessel weren’t rated for 4000m.
I've got about half a dozen Aussie reds worth £150+. I suspect they are close to peaking as well, or indeed past it
I used to have a £300+ bottle of scotch given me by my employers as a reward for good behaviour, but my then wife age 22 drank it all in about 2 evenings while I was away coz she was "bored" and she thought it was "just average whisky". She did say it was "unexpectedly nice"
I have a horrible feeling she mixed it with Diet Coke
i guess you could buy for your/our children but none of them drink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Lifetime federal judicial appointments were modeled on . . . wait for it . . . English practice & precedents.
Maybe Kamikaze Christie wouldn't.
German wine is due a massive comeback, I agree
We will see just how conditional THAT condition may prove to be, depending upon . . . conditions!
Capbern £230
Tronquoy £236
Meyney £282
Lagrange (Pomerol) £285
Tour St Christophe £351
Batailley £372
Gloria £377
Lafon Rochet £420
Unfortunately actuarial considerations mean I haven't personally gone in for the 2022s to any great extent, apart from some lesser ones like La Chenade which should mature relatively quickly. I have however bought Batailley and La Gaffeliere, both of which should be absolutely superb, as a hedge against unexpected longevity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election
NEW THREAD
Repeated thermal cycling of the carbon fibre pressure vessel could have induced cracks; the viewing port was never intended for use at that depth, etc.
The fact that it had successfully dived several times didn't mean it was safe.
The Council already have an alternative scheme involving a ramp, so I have to think it meets safety standards and would fit in the space. Their plan is "do that later when more money is available", which for me is a Red Flag that 1 - it will never get done and 2 - they didn't think it through properly at the start.
One golden rule is that you *always* go for quality first over quantity - if not decades of experience teaches that you get a bit more quantity of crap infra that is not fit for purpose.
Basically: for a given internal/external pressure, the greater the inside diameter to contain the pressure; the greater the wall thickness required to withstand that pressure.
In addition: AIUI the submarine is made from carbon fibre. This is *very* brittle, and failures often do not make themselves known until the point of catastrophic failure. There is very little creep / plastic deformation,
If the current set of Justices continue to bring it into even greater disrepute, at some point - though of course that's subject to electoral considerations - Congress will do something about it. Public relations is very similar to electoral considerations, should they decline sufficiently.
Impeachment might require a supermajority, but other approaches - increasing the size of the court, for example - wouldn't.
RIP.
As an example, say that a ramp option requires some land purchase from one of the neighbouring properties (I don't know if that's the case, but from the 2D diagram that's plausible). That puts the cost and time of a CPO or purchase onto the project costs.
And given the way cyclists often go, a 90-degree steep slope ending at a road is a recipe for accidents. But so are steps...