What happened? I was listening on the radio but they didn't really explain much, just that play was disrupted.
Just Stop Oil. Good for them. More of this sort of thing.
"Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more." Ulrike Meinhof
Do you support all protesto-vandalism, or only for causes you agree with?
Why the fuck would I support it for causes I disagree with?
I find your position baffling. The means of change are more important in the long run than the change itself.
Why is it baffling? Strategies are, mostly, morally neutral; the cause is the thing that places the morality. Violence is typically considered "bad", but it's fine in self defence; so violence isn't actually the bad thing, but the cause is.
Protesting is a strategy. I like it when causes that are good use it, and dislike it when causes that are bad use it. I would still protect the right to protesting, as long as counter protest and self defence in the face of violence at protests is allowed (see Honor Oak this weekend).
Violence isn't morally neutral, of course.
Yes it is; it's a tool. Is it always bad to do violence? Is self defence immoral? Are police arresting people, a clearly violent act, always immoral? I would argue most violence is probably immoral, but that's typically due to the cause.
No, it's not - which is why the law sets quite a low bar on the offence of assault. And why police use of violence must be proportionate to the situation. The question is whether it's utilised in preventing something morally worse, as in the examples you cite.
So self defence is immoral, but less immoral than being assaulted, and therefore is permitted? That's ridiculous. Self defence and the defence of others can be actively moral - and still involve violence.
Moral questions generally resolve to context and instance.
What is self defence? What is proportional?
Indeed, they do. I didn't say they were easy answers, just that it is clear that there must be some instance where violence is morally acceptable or even a moral good.
There is but its the exception that proves the rule.
As a rule violence is morally bad.
There are exceptional circumstances whereby it can be good, eg repelling Russia's forces and liberating occupied land is morally good. Typically the exceptional circumstances are where a use of force is needed to repel or prevent a greater act of violence.
But that doesn't detract from the fact that as a rule violence is morally bad, just because there are exceptions to that rule.
I mean, yes actually - having exceptions to the rule is exactly why rule based morality doesn't work and why we aren't all Kantians. "Lying is bad" - "Okay, is Anne Frank in your attic?". Rule based morality doesn't work. Actions are strategies that you have to back up with intent and reason; those are the things that provide the moral basis for an act.
Rule based morality does work, but there are circumstances which are exceptions. Any rule has exceptions typically.
We are humans not machines, we can think and judge exceptions. Heck, even rudimentary machines can have exceptions built into their programming.
You have the moral judgement "x is bad", you have the rule "therefore do not do x", you cannot have a rule that says "x is bad, therefore do not do x, except when x isn't bad" because that isn't how rules work - you have invented moral relativism, which is how people function and is necessary - but is not a rule based moral framework.
Yes, you can.
Rules allow exceptions. Next.
Philosophy and law 101.
How do you decide what should be granted an exception and what shouldn't? Isn't that in itself a moral judgement?
Yes it is. As I said, we're human, we can do that.
Its also part of the reason in the law we have juries and the reasonable person test. To underpin that.
But the existence of exceptions doesn't prevent the existence of rules, it just means that exceptions to the rules do exist too.
Then that isn't a rules based morality, it is moral relativism. That is what that means. It is the definition of those things.
Unfortunately I have to go, which is a shame as this discussion is getting interesting, but most philosophers would allow the existence of both rules and relativism, and it is upto human judgement as to determine which is appropriate. "Always" as you put it, is a fool's errand, but so too is "Never".
You are acting as if pure relativism, without rules, is appropriate. That is equally as nonsensical as operating "always" in accordance with a rule.
Any situation that isn't a pure rule is always pure relativism, because whilst you might have a "general rule" it is not a "rule" in the sense of rule based morality. In the colloquial sense of "rule of thumb" or "general rule" - sure, yes, fine, I accept. But when you are talking about philosophical models of ethics and morals a rule has to be a rule, or it is pointless.
To say "x = bad" therefore "don't do x" does not allow exceptions.
If you say "x = sometimes bad" you have to define when "x = sometimes good" - that is relativism. If you say "x = bad 99% of the time" you still have to define and parse when "x = good" that 1% of the time - that involves relativism. That is not rule based.
I think this shows that if you want a rules-based morality then it can't be based on abstractions such as 'lying is bad'; otherwise you get the absurdity of it being morally objectionable to lie about Anne Frank's whereabouts. The rules will have to be based on some measurable consequence: X is morally correct if it causes more joy in the world than not doing X etc.
1000 sadistic people torturing one child may bring more joy to the 1000 than bad stuff to the child - 1000 is loads more than 1? Goodness, joy etc are not measurable or comparable.
No moral systems survive theoretical scrutiny. Aristotle was and is right: if you want a broadly good society then the character of people needs to be developed in ways which they and society flourish in. Such people, says Aristotle, characteristically behave on the whole well. He identifies justice, moderation, wisdom and fortitude as the four big character qualities. I don't think he is wrong.
However - and it's a big flaw, He is blind to the needs of: women, slaves, non-Greeks, less bright people.
You seem to be saying personal morality is all just a matter of opinion.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
The area of the UK is often quoted as 244,820 square kilometres
2.4482e+11 m2
if we take rainfall as 500mm a year - much, much lower than present - we get
122,410,000,000 m2 of rainfall per year
Personal consumption is 50 m2 per year (approx) - say 3,350,000,000 m2 for the whole population.
which gives us the result that 2.7% of a very low figure for rainfall will provide the entire annual water requirement for everyone.
This strongly suggests that the issue we have is time shifting water via storage.
If Mandelbrot is right and Britain’s coastline is infinite, then sure also it’s area is infinite and thus our supply of rainwater is limitless?
It doesn't follow that its area is infinite.
The Koch snowflake is created by starting with an equilateral triangle and then dividing each side into three equal parts. At each step, the middle third of each side is removed and replaced by a smaller equilateral triangle. This process is repeated infinitely many times.
You end up with an infinite boundary but a finite area.
At each iteration, doesn't the area increase? (Now obviously we'd describe it as approaching a limit, but still...)
Yes it does but, as you say, it approaches a limit.
You can't safely use common sense or intuition in mathematics!
how do we get back from here to:
WOULD A NEW TORY LEADER SAVE A NUMBER OF SEATS?
which was the exam question for today.
Well if you postulate an infinite series of Tory leaders between now and the next election..
MAKE BRITAIN INFINITE AGAIN!
May the Sun never set on the British Apeirogon . . .
Universities are total media whores. A piece of my research has been on BBC website and ITV local news recently and suddenly I'm getting nice emails from the head of department and from the pro vice-chancellor for research.
This is far from the best or most interesting research I've done - the bit that's made the news is really quite easy and something I personally have done a number of times before; there is a more interesting/novel part to this research but that hasn't been reported. It's only made the news due to some very skilled/well connected media people in a funding charity. Valuable lesson, I guess - I've always said universities care about funding, profile, citations and quality in that order. Maybe I need to switch profile and funding in that assessment!
Genomic screening of 16 UK native bat species through conservationist networks uncovers coronaviruses with zoonotic potential
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38717-w There has been limited characterisation of bat-borne coronaviruses in Europe. Here, we screened for coronaviruses in 48 faecal samples from 16 of the 17 bat species breeding in the UK, collected through a bat rehabilitation and conservationist network. We recovered nine complete genomes, including two novel coronavirus species, across six bat species: four alphacoronaviruses, a MERS-related betacoronavirus, and four closely related sarbecoviruses. We demonstrate that at least one of these sarbecoviruses can bind and use the human ACE2 receptor for infecting human cells, albeit suboptimally. Additionally, the spike proteins of these sarbecoviruses possess an R-A-K-Q motif, which lies only one nucleotide mutation away from a furin cleavage site (FCS) that enhances infectivity in other coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. However, mutating this motif to an FCS does not enable spike cleavage. Overall, while UK sarbecoviruses would require further molecular adaptations to infect humans, their zoonotic risk warrants closer surveillance...
Lets hope the researchers arent all seen sniffling near Smithfield market this weekend......
Or that the first cases of SARS-Cov-3 are found near Bath
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
Universities are total media whores. A piece of my research has been on BBC website and ITV local news recently and suddenly I'm getting nice emails from the head of department and from the pro vice-chancellor for research.
This is far from the best or most interesting research I've done - the bit that's made the news is really quite easy and something I personally have done a number of times before; there is a more interesting/novel part to this research but that hasn't been reported. It's only made the news due to some very skilled/well connected media people in a funding charity. Valuable lesson, I guess - I've always said universities care about funding, profile, citations and quality in that order. Maybe I need to switch profile and funding in that assessment!
Suggest to your head of department that s/he should poach the charity's media people as public relations staff.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
He has a problem which isn't going to be easily fixed.
1) the plug on the wall will have security that blocks others from using it assuming he buys a suitable system (or an off switch inside the house). But as you say zero chance 2) cable cross the path to his car equally a big problem..
It's basically his problem and all he can do is find a means of charging that doesn't impact others.
Long term I suspect we are going to end up with bollards are similar by the road that provide charging points but we are years away from that point.
And I recently saw a company with a patent for putting suitable power supplies in the pavement using with a manhole cover for when it wasn't charging. Don't think they will be cheap but that would work provided highways agreed (as the pavement would need to be dug up an relaid)..
The area of the UK is often quoted as 244,820 square kilometres
2.4482e+11 m2
if we take rainfall as 500mm a year - much, much lower than present - we get
122,410,000,000 m2 of rainfall per year
Personal consumption is 50 m2 per year (approx) - say 3,350,000,000 m2 for the whole population.
which gives us the result that 2.7% of a very low figure for rainfall will provide the entire annual water requirement for everyone.
This strongly suggests that the issue we have is time shifting water via storage.
If Mandelbrot is right and Britain’s coastline is infinite, then sure also it’s area is infinite and thus our supply of rainwater is limitless?
He's clearly not, since the particles which make it up are not infinitely small, and thus incapable of infinite subdivision. That's the problem with mathematicians versus physicists.
Physicists, of course, argue that Britain is, to a good enough approximation, a perfect circle and use 2*pi*r, p*r^2 for coastline and area
If circles were hexagons, we could use 3 instead of Pi.
That was God's original intention but He screwed up as usual.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
a) I have no idea; but b) I would say within the Neighbourhood Plan there might be an area which could be designated as an EV charging point(s). If it is such a village then there is likely such a place or small strip of kerb.
Issues/questions -
1. It would then be first come first served, presumably 2. Who would pay for it? It is a common good arguably hence maybe a grant from the council; if not, and he wanted to pay for it then it could be a named parking spot; which then leads to 3. Why couldn't it be a named parking spot outside his house (cf disabled parking). 4. Otherwise outside his house is unlikely to be this place as it would as you say rile up the neighbours I have no doubt.
That said, in such villages most people have "their" parking spot and these are usually respected so it might be that he was able to install the charging point outside his house but that wouldn't stop people visiting the village from parking (and charging their car) there.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
Grade 2 listed building - nothing is going on an external wall....
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Yes - here comes the fun...
As to installing a charging point, it is pretty trivial to include a switch inside the house that shuts it off. A number of charging points for home use have locks etc to prevent unauthorised usage, as well.
I knew someone who had a property he didn't want defaced, who installed the charging point in the ground. Waterproofing was some fun, but manageable.
I’m sure Putin is surprised to know he’s involved in a war in Iraq.
What the hell do the Democrats do, with someone who’s clearly losing their mind? Do they carry on pretending there’s not a problem, and just let fringe candidates such as Williamson and Kennedy get involved in their primary season, hoping that no-one notices the President being 80 years old?
1 - Is Daniel Korski toast yet? Not that it will make much difference to the identity of the next Major.
2 - The 40% water bill increase sounds like either industry scaremongering, or media sensationalising.
25% sounds more like it, and it is wished on us - as it will be across the UK and across Europe since we all have the same sewerage in rivers issue - by lobbies demanding umpteen billions of investment.
Since English water consumption is about 25% above the European best practice (140l pppd vs 105l in Denmark), if peeps invest in reducing their consumption (eg rainwater collection for the garden using a couple of Industrial Bulk Containers and an automatic watering system) and change habits, then bills will stay approx the same.
Personal responsibility required.
One thing I find fascinating is that Greens inm my experience are demanding that millions of tons of concrete (presumably) be used to build new reservoirs. Greens? Rather than control consumption. What happened to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?
Why would we not build new reservoirs to cope with a vastly increased population? Scratching around for ways to stave off a hosepipe ban in Britain of all places is grotesque.
It seems sensible to me to do the easier, less expensive options first.
Why create expensive, treated water to water your garden, when you can harvest the rain that falls on your roof? Why drown more valleys or build bunds when we lose around 17% of water from pipe leakage?
To me that just seems bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all to fill old quarries with water, which is the sort of thing that gold-plated EU legislation has prevented us from doing. We have plentiful water in this country - it is one of the benefits of the huge rainfall we have to put up with. It takes willful stupidity not to be able to supply all our water needs and desires with ease and at little expense.
Govt policy, as mentioned in the link, is already to reduce consumption to 110l pppd by 2050.
It's surprising which places get more rain than London. London isn’t even near to proclaiming itself the wettest capital in Europe by the annual amount of rain. With its 557mm of rain per year, the city holds 35th place on the list.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
@MattW - while you're around, I've been meaning to say: about 18 months, we had a conversation about getting solar panels in the context of me getting a new roof, and you suggested I get them built into the roof rather than placed on top. Anyway, I did so, the scaffolding has come off, and I'm delighted with it. It looks great and saved me the cost of a whole load of tiles. So thanks.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
I think it's very simple: he just needs to research the kind of EV charging stations that the Elizabethans used, and then to make sure he exactly replicates one of those.
Genomic screening of 16 UK native bat species through conservationist networks uncovers coronaviruses with zoonotic potential
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38717-w There has been limited characterisation of bat-borne coronaviruses in Europe. Here, we screened for coronaviruses in 48 faecal samples from 16 of the 17 bat species breeding in the UK, collected through a bat rehabilitation and conservationist network. We recovered nine complete genomes, including two novel coronavirus species, across six bat species: four alphacoronaviruses, a MERS-related betacoronavirus, and four closely related sarbecoviruses. We demonstrate that at least one of these sarbecoviruses can bind and use the human ACE2 receptor for infecting human cells, albeit suboptimally. Additionally, the spike proteins of these sarbecoviruses possess an R-A-K-Q motif, which lies only one nucleotide mutation away from a furin cleavage site (FCS) that enhances infectivity in other coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. However, mutating this motif to an FCS does not enable spike cleavage. Overall, while UK sarbecoviruses would require further molecular adaptations to infect humans, their zoonotic risk warrants closer surveillance...
Lets hope the researchers arent all seen sniffling near Smithfield market this weekend......
Or that the first cases of SARS-Cov-3 are found near Bath
Imagine the arguments with Leon - not so much bats being for sale beside the Bath Chaps in the local butchers, but the presence of Box Tunnel and Corsham Quarries nearby, not to mention the Mendip caves.
1 - Is Daniel Korski toast yet? Not that it will make much difference to the identity of the next Major.
2 - The 40% water bill increase sounds like either industry scaremongering, or media sensationalising.
25% sounds more like it, and it is wished on us - as it will be across the UK and across Europe since we all have the same sewerage in rivers issue - by lobbies demanding umpteen billions of investment.
Since English water consumption is about 25% above the European best practice (140l pppd vs 105l in Denmark), if peeps invest in reducing their consumption (eg rainwater collection for the garden using a couple of Industrial Bulk Containers and an automatic watering system) and change habits, then bills will stay approx the same.
Personal responsibility required.
One thing I find fascinating is that Greens inm my experience are demanding that millions of tons of concrete (presumably) be used to build new reservoirs. Greens? Rather than control consumption. What happened to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?
Why would we not build new reservoirs to cope with a vastly increased population? Scratching around for ways to stave off a hosepipe ban in Britain of all places is grotesque.
Confluence of interests.
All Development Is Bad + NIMBYS + Government wanting (via) regulator) lower bills + Companies want to spend less = huge coalition.
Hence no reservoirs.
Note that the major piece of water infrastructure built recently in the South East is the Thames Super Sewer, where most of the work is happening underground. The actual points where it is being accessed from the surface were furiously fought over.
"Build the windfarm out sea. Where the real estate is free. And it's far away from me."
I've moved in favour of onshore wind as a partial solution, having been heavily opposed to it, due to national security reasons.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
I think it's very simple: he just needs to research the kind of EV charging stations that the Elizabethans used, and then to make sure he exactly replicates one of those.
Just put it in a stone mounting block for a horse, beside the kerb. (My family home still had its mounting block from the front, albeit moved to the back garden and used to put plant pots on.)
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
If he gets one at home, he will also have to manage the trip hazard issue, which will be up the political agenda, and he will be exposed to a civil liability. I'd expect a new version of the "cash for crash" scam - trip for tips.
Universities are total media whores. A piece of my research has been on BBC website and ITV local news recently and suddenly I'm getting nice emails from the head of department and from the pro vice-chancellor for research.
This is far from the best or most interesting research I've done - the bit that's made the news is really quite easy and something I personally have done a number of times before; there is a more interesting/novel part to this research but that hasn't been reported. It's only made the news due to some very skilled/well connected media people in a funding charity. Valuable lesson, I guess - I've always said universities care about funding, profile, citations and quality in that order. Maybe I need to switch profile and funding in that assessment!
Suggest to your head of department that s/he should poach the charity's media people as public relations staff.
I suspect that would require a significant uplift in salary for that post!
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
@MattW - while you're around, I've been meaning to say: about 18 months, we had a conversation about getting solar panels in the context of me getting a new roof, and you suggested I get them built into the roof rather than placed on top. Anyway, I did so, the scaffolding has come off, and I'm delighted with it. It looks great and saved me the cost of a whole load of tiles. So thanks.
Great stuff !!! Glad to be of service - channelling the doors from Hitch Hiker.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
I think it's very simple: he just needs to research the kind of EV charging stations that the Elizabethans used, and then to make sure he exactly replicates one of those.
Would mean missing out on any charging tech innovations made over the past 9 and a bit months during the present Caroline era
In the old days, if you wanted to buy a coffee eg in the Swiss part of Geneva airport, you'd have to convert say £10 into Swiss francs and end up with some small Swiss change after paying for the coffee. With Revolut, you convert £ to CHF, pay in CHF by tapping your Revolut Mastercard, then convert the remaining CHF back to £ with very little loss and no small bits of metal in your pocket.
Personally I prefer to just pay (in CHF) by credit card for that sort of thing, since my credit card doesn't impose a per-transaction fee. I'm also old-fashioned enough to like having some cash for emergencies though -- ended up spending 8 quid in conversion losses from turning 40 quid into Czech currency and back for a recent trip where (as it turned out) I was fine paying by card everywhere...
Its for that exact reason you want a Starling or similar debit card. In France provided I use a Banque Postale cash point you can take money out with no fee charge by either side at Mastercard's exchange rate.
It worked out at saving about 2% compared to the other options..
Doesn't help with the "now I have 1000 koruna in notes at the end of the holiday" part, though...
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Purely on controlling access, he puts a master switch inside the house - where the power is presumably coming from. Near the fuse box or somewhere convenient.
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
@MattW - while you're around, I've been meaning to say: about 18 months, we had a conversation about getting solar panels in the context of me getting a new roof, and you suggested I get them built into the roof rather than placed on top. Anyway, I did so, the scaffolding has come off, and I'm delighted with it. It looks great and saved me the cost of a whole load of tiles. So thanks.
Great stuff !!! Glad to be of service - channelling the doors from Hitch Hiker.
Chance of a piccie?
I'm actually just off to London now - I shall ping one over when I get home on Friday!
The area of the UK is often quoted as 244,820 square kilometres
2.4482e+11 m2
if we take rainfall as 500mm a year - much, much lower than present - we get
122,410,000,000 m2 of rainfall per year
Personal consumption is 50 m2 per year (approx) - say 3,350,000,000 m2 for the whole population.
which gives us the result that 2.7% of a very low figure for rainfall will provide the entire annual water requirement for everyone.
This strongly suggests that the issue we have is time shifting water via storage.
If Mandelbrot is right and Britain’s coastline is infinite, then sure also it’s area is infinite and thus our supply of rainwater is limitless?
It doesn't follow that its area is infinite.
The Koch snowflake is created by starting with an equilateral triangle and then dividing each side into three equal parts. At each step, the middle third of each side is removed and replaced by a smaller equilateral triangle. This process is repeated infinitely many times.
You end up with an infinite boundary but a finite area.
At each iteration, doesn't the area increase? (Now obviously we'd describe it as approaching a limit, but still...)
Yes it does but, as you say, it approaches a limit.
You can't safely use common sense or intuition in mathematics!
how do we get back from here to:
WOULD A NEW TORY LEADER SAVE A NUMBER OF SEATS?
which was the exam question for today.
Try and find out if Georg Cantor has any living descendants and, if so, offer them the job...
1 - Is Daniel Korski toast yet? Not that it will make much difference to the identity of the next Major.
2 - The 40% water bill increase sounds like either industry scaremongering, or media sensationalising.
25% sounds more like it, and it is wished on us - as it will be across the UK and across Europe since we all have the same sewerage in rivers issue - by lobbies demanding umpteen billions of investment.
Since English water consumption is about 25% above the European best practice (140l pppd vs 105l in Denmark), if peeps invest in reducing their consumption (eg rainwater collection for the garden using a couple of Industrial Bulk Containers and an automatic watering system) and change habits, then bills will stay approx the same.
Personal responsibility required.
One thing I find fascinating is that Greens inm my experience are demanding that millions of tons of concrete (presumably) be used to build new reservoirs. Greens? Rather than control consumption. What happened to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?
Why would we not build new reservoirs to cope with a vastly increased population? Scratching around for ways to stave off a hosepipe ban in Britain of all places is grotesque.
Confluence of interests.
All Development Is Bad + NIMBYS + Government wanting (via) regulator) lower bills + Companies want to spend less = huge coalition.
Hence no reservoirs.
Note that the major piece of water infrastructure built recently in the South East is the Thames Super Sewer, where most of the work is happening underground. The actual points where it is being accessed from the surface were furiously fought over.
"Build the windfarm out sea. Where the real estate is free. And it's far away from me."
I've moved in favour of onshore wind as a partial solution, having been heavily opposed to it, due to national security reasons.
I’m deeply in favour of power generation through an internal combustion engine driven by nuclear explosions, for national security reasons.
“Nuke us?”. The permanent secretary’s eyebrows lifted almost as high as his teacup bounced, once every few seconds.
He looked at the Russian ambassador, over the top of his spectacles, with mock Pickwickian benevolence.
I’m sure Putin is surprised to know he’s involved in a war in Iraq.
What the hell do the Democrats do, with someone who’s clearly losing their mind? Do they carry on pretending there’s not a problem, and just let fringe candidates such as Williamson and Kennedy get involved in their primary season, hoping that no-one notices the President being 80 years old?
And yet none of you were concerned when Trump was discussing "Nambia" (check the spelling) back in 2017.
1 - Is Daniel Korski toast yet? Not that it will make much difference to the identity of the next Major.
2 - The 40% water bill increase sounds like either industry scaremongering, or media sensationalising.
25% sounds more like it, and it is wished on us - as it will be across the UK and across Europe since we all have the same sewerage in rivers issue - by lobbies demanding umpteen billions of investment.
Since English water consumption is about 25% above the European best practice (140l pppd vs 105l in Denmark), if peeps invest in reducing their consumption (eg rainwater collection for the garden using a couple of Industrial Bulk Containers and an automatic watering system) and change habits, then bills will stay approx the same.
Personal responsibility required.
One thing I find fascinating is that Greens inm my experience are demanding that millions of tons of concrete (presumably) be used to build new reservoirs. Greens? Rather than control consumption. What happened to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?
Why would we not build new reservoirs to cope with a vastly increased population? Scratching around for ways to stave off a hosepipe ban in Britain of all places is grotesque.
Confluence of interests.
All Development Is Bad + NIMBYS + Government wanting (via) regulator) lower bills + Companies want to spend less = huge coalition.
Hence no reservoirs.
Note that the major piece of water infrastructure built recently in the South East is the Thames Super Sewer, where most of the work is happening underground. The actual points where it is being accessed from the surface were furiously fought over.
"Build the windfarm out sea. Where the real estate is free. And it's far away from me."
I've moved in favour of onshore wind as a partial solution, having been heavily opposed to it, due to national security reasons.
I’m deeply in favour of power generation through an internal combustion engine driven by nuclear explosions, for national security reasons.
“Nuke us?”. The permanent secretary’s eyebrows lifted almost as high as his teacup bounced, once every few seconds.
He looked at the Russian ambassador, over the top of his spectacles, with mock Pickwickian benevolence.
Universities are total media whores. A piece of my research has been on BBC website and ITV local news recently and suddenly I'm getting nice emails from the head of department and from the pro vice-chancellor for research.
This is far from the best or most interesting research I've done - the bit that's made the news is really quite easy and something I personally have done a number of times before; there is a more interesting/novel part to this research but that hasn't been reported. It's only made the news due to some very skilled/well connected media people in a funding charity. Valuable lesson, I guess - I've always said universities care about funding, profile, citations and quality in that order. Maybe I need to switch profile and funding in that assessment!
Suggest to your head of department that s/he should poach the charity's media people as public relations staff.
I suspect that would require a significant uplift in salary for that post!
Yes. The same in my experience. I could never believe our department fundraisers covered their own salaries.
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
Yes - here comes the fun...
As to installing a charging point, it is pretty trivial to include a switch inside the house that shuts it off. A number of charging points for home use have locks etc to prevent unauthorised usage, as well.
I knew someone who had a property he didn't want defaced, who installed the charging point in the ground. Waterproofing was some fun, but manageable.
The problem is really about allocated parking.
I don't think councils can allocate parking spaces on public highway to an individual/household. I believe the traffic order needs to state a category of user (so resident permit holder, business permit holder, emergecy vehicles only, disabled badge holder, pay and display or whatever). I don't think they can designate highway to the owner of Rose Cottage or whatever. They can do bays specifically for electric charging, but I think not where the charger is only available to one person - this would be for lamppost charging points and that sort of thing.
On trailing leads, I think councils take different approaches to enforcement. Some are okay with a cable cover, some have a process for allowing a gully to be cut. Very few, if any, wouldn't see an unprotected trailing cable right across a footpath as obstruction of the footpath - it's just way too much of a trip hazard and the householder (and possibly the Council if they know about it and don't bother dealing with it) could easily be sued by someone coming a cropper).
I’m sure Putin is surprised to know he’s involved in a war in Iraq.
What the hell do the Democrats do, with someone who’s clearly losing their mind? Do they carry on pretending there’s not a problem, and just let fringe candidates such as Williamson and Kennedy get involved in their primary season, hoping that no-one notices the President being 80 years old?
Biden was prone to malapropisms and that sort of thing when he was a young(ish) man in the 1980s - he's always been known for it. It's true that when an 80 year old does it, you fear it's indicative of a broader problem much more than when a 40 year old does it. But it doesn't mean he's "clearly losing [his] mind" as you say - just that it'll be a problem for him on the campaign trail and he is old, which we all know already.
On primary opponents, I think that's a red herring. Williamson and Kennedy just aren't for one minute viable candidates because their views are miles outside the mainstream of the Democratic party. If Biden has to drop out of the race before the Convention, there is still no way either would be candidate - it'd move to a brokered convention and, depending how late it happened, it's pretty likely to be Harris would be candidate (much more open if he pulled out tomorrow). Whether you see that as a good thing given her insipid approval ratings is another matter - but a crank wouldn't get the nomination.
This is no different from any other President seeking re-election - most have an oddball or two running against them. But, if they are incapacitated, the weirdo wouldn't become candidate by default - the candidate would be a mainstream figure closely associated with the President in practice. Was anyone remotely concerned that, if Obama stepped in front of a bus during the Democratic Convention in 2012, John Wolfe Jnr would become Democratic nominee? Of course not - he had a tiny handful of delegates but it just wouldn't have happened that Obama delegates would fall in behind him rather than, at that time, Biden.
One of Norway's most popular natural attractions, also a location for the Vikings TV series two and one of the Mission Impossible films
Been there many times. It always makes me smile that a country that in some ways is so keen on health and safety is so unconcerned about letting the public wander about on the edge of a half a kilometer high sheer drop.
When I was up there a few years ago someone shot by me on a pushbike and rode straight over the edge. They were of course wearing a parachute but it still makes you take a deep breath when you see it happen in real time.
Apparently the Norwegians say they can hardly fence in all of their nature. Kudos to them.
There have been some deaths there, but they are mostly suicides - indeed I think there’s only been one death, of a Spanish visitor, where a suicide note has never been found and it is assumed to have been an accident.
Lots of people were taking their Instagram photos at, or dangling over, the edge, so it is a wonder that there aren’t more accidents, really. If it were the US you wouldn’t even be allowed up there at all.
Comments
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1674062124245549056
Someone has written to Parish Clerk explaining that he plans to buy a house that is for sale but he has an EV. The house is situated on the main through road of a conservation area village. The property he is contemplating buying is a Grade 2 Listed end-of-terrace stone cottage with no driveway, garage or allocated parking. The current owner of this property parks his car aside the road, as is common with terraced properties, assuming the space is vacant.
The prospective buyer wants to know how he could charge his car should he go ahead with the purchase. I think he is wanting to install a charging point on the front or side of the cottage and run a cable across the path to his car at the side of the road.
The clerk has referred him to highways, the conservation officer and others.
Can someone explain how EV ownership works in this scenario. It must be common.
I assume he would have to rely on charging options away from his home? If he was allowed to install a charging point in his Grade 2 listed stone wall (no chance) then what is to stop any other EV owner from pulling up and charging their own car? Is it permissible to have a charging lead trailing a public path? If he were allowed to install a charging point I think the next thing he would argue for is a ban on anyone else parking in from of his house, thus acquiring a designated parking space on land he doesn't own.
Many thanks.
May the Sun never set on the British Apeirogon . . .
This is far from the best or most interesting research I've done - the bit that's made the news is really quite easy and something I personally have done a number of times before; there is a more interesting/novel part to this research but that hasn't been reported. It's only made the news due to some very skilled/well connected media people in a funding charity. Valuable lesson, I guess - I've always said universities care about funding, profile, citations and quality in that order. Maybe I need to switch profile and funding in that assessment!
That's how I protect external sockets from being hijacked.
He may also need a larger master fuse. Say 100A not 60A. I think for a terrace 3-phase may be overkill.
Does he have a mini front garden (eg 1m) so he can put it on the back of the front wall?
If he can find similar precedents that would be very useful. Ask on buildhub.co.uk (community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am a moderator, and we now have 15k members. Or perhaps an E-vehicle forum.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66040464
1) the plug on the wall will have security that blocks others from using it assuming he buys a suitable system (or an off switch inside the house). But as you say zero chance
2) cable cross the path to his car equally a big problem..
It's basically his problem and all he can do is find a means of charging that doesn't impact others.
Long term I suspect we are going to end up with bollards are similar by the road that provide charging points but we are years away from that point.
And I recently saw a company with a patent for putting suitable power supplies in the pavement using with a manhole cover for when it wasn't charging. Don't think they will be cheap but that would work provided highways agreed (as the pavement would need to be dug up an relaid)..
Issues/questions -
1. It would then be first come first served, presumably
2. Who would pay for it? It is a common good arguably hence maybe a grant from the council; if not, and he wanted to pay for it then it could be a named parking spot; which then leads to
3. Why couldn't it be a named parking spot outside his house (cf disabled parking).
4. Otherwise outside his house is unlikely to be this place as it would as you say rile up the neighbours I have no doubt.
That said, in such villages most people have "their" parking spot and these are usually respected so it might be that he was able to install the charging point outside his house but that wouldn't stop people visiting the village from parking (and charging their car) there.
As to installing a charging point, it is pretty trivial to include a switch inside the house that shuts it off. A number of charging points for home use have locks etc to prevent unauthorised usage, as well.
I knew someone who had a property he didn't want defaced, who installed the charging point in the ground. Waterproofing was some fun, but manageable.
The problem is really about allocated parking.
What the hell do the Democrats do, with someone who’s clearly losing their mind? Do they carry on pretending there’s not a problem, and just let fringe candidates such as Williamson and Kennedy get involved in their primary season, hoping that no-one notices the President being 80 years old?
Subject to trends more recent than 25-50 years.
Looking at roughly where CycleFree lives its 1650mm but if you go further north part of the lakes gets 3500mm a year.
No wonder there is a lake there..
Chance of a piccie?
“Nuke us?”. The permanent secretary’s eyebrows lifted almost as high as his teacup bounced, once every few seconds.
He looked at the Russian ambassador, over the top of his spectacles, with mock Pickwickian benevolence.
“My dear sir, we nuke ourselves every 10 seconds”
The teacups rattled, viciously.
NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukus
On trailing leads, I think councils take different approaches to enforcement. Some are okay with a cable cover, some have a process for allowing a gully to be cut. Very few, if any, wouldn't see an unprotected trailing cable right across a footpath as obstruction of the footpath - it's just way too much of a trip hazard and the householder (and possibly the Council if they know about it and don't bother dealing with it) could easily be sued by someone coming a cropper).
On primary opponents, I think that's a red herring. Williamson and Kennedy just aren't for one minute viable candidates because their views are miles outside the mainstream of the Democratic party. If Biden has to drop out of the race before the Convention, there is still no way either would be candidate - it'd move to a brokered convention and, depending how late it happened, it's pretty likely to be Harris would be candidate (much more open if he pulled out tomorrow). Whether you see that as a good thing given her insipid approval ratings is another matter - but a crank wouldn't get the nomination.
This is no different from any other President seeking re-election - most have an oddball or two running against them. But, if they are incapacitated, the weirdo wouldn't become candidate by default - the candidate would be a mainstream figure closely associated with the President in practice. Was anyone remotely concerned that, if Obama stepped in front of a bus during the Democratic Convention in 2012, John Wolfe Jnr would become Democratic nominee? Of course not - he had a tiny handful of delegates but it just wouldn't have happened that Obama delegates would fall in behind him rather than, at that time, Biden.
There have been some deaths there, but they are mostly suicides - indeed I think there’s only been one death, of a Spanish visitor, where a suicide note has never been found and it is assumed to have been an accident.
Lots of people were taking their Instagram photos at, or dangling over, the edge, so it is a wonder that there aren’t more accidents, really. If it were the US you wouldn’t even be allowed up there at all.